zcfru^ 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 

The  Peter  and  Rosell  Harvey 
Memorial  Fund 


THE 


NAVY  BOARD"  OF  1855 


IN  REVIEW  BEFORE  THE 


NAVAL-COURT  OF  INQUIRY, 

SITTING  AT  WASHINGTON,  1857; 

COURT  COMPOSED  AS  FOLLOWS*. 

Commodore  E.  A.  F.  Lavallette;  President. 
Cap.  Wm.  J.  McCluney,  ' 


BY,) 
S,      J 


i  Members. 
"     Henry  A.  Adams, 

Charles  H.  Winder,  Esq.,  Judge  Advocate. 

P.  Phillips,  Wm.  H.  Eogers,  and  T.  M.  Blount,  Esqrs., 

COUNSEL  FOR 

WASHINGTON  A.  BARTLETT, 

EX-LIEUT.  U.  S.  NAVY, 

(Midshipman,  1833;  Passed  Midshipman,  1839;  Acting  Lieut.,  1842; 
Lieutenant,  1844;  Civil  Magistrate  of  San  Francisco,  1846, '47;* 
Lieut.  Commanding  uArgo,"  1847  ;  Lieut.  Commanding,  and 
Assistant  Coast  Survey,  1848-52 ;  Special  Agent  Trea- 
sury Department  at  Paris,  France,  1852-54;  First 
Lieutenant  Flag-Ship  African  Squadron,  1855), 

APPELLANT. 

BEING  THE 

DEFENCE, 

AND   ACCOMPANYING   DOCUMENTS,  READ   BY 

WM.  H.   ROGERS,  ESQ.  (OF   COUNSEL),  AND   ADMITTED   TO   THE 
RECORD,  MAY  28TH,  1857. 


NEW     YORK: 

w.  ii.  tinson,  printer  and  stereotyper. 

*  Naval  Occupancy  of  California. 


TO 


COMMODORE  OHAELES  STEWART,  IT.  S.  N. 


Dear  Sir: 

To  you  I  most  respectfully  dedicate  this  "Defence,"  in  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  great  and  enduring  debt  of  gratitude  which  is  due  to  you  for 
that  act  of  civic  heroism,  wherein,  by  your  individual  firmness  and  determi- 
nation, in  1846,  you  held  in  check,  and  for  the  time  frustrated,  the  secret 
combinations  of  a  "clique"  to  seize  upon  the  honors  of  the  Navy  by  the 
sacrifice  of  every  ennobling  impulse  and  the  personal  rights  of  comrades. 

On  that  occasion  you  exhibited  the  same  fearless  spirit  and  exalted  patriot- 
ism, as  when,  in  1812,  you  demanded  of  the  Government,  in  concert  with  the 
lamented  Bainbridge,  that  the  little  navy  of  that  day  should  not  be  dismantled 
until  it  had  been  given  an  opportunity  to  measure  prowess  with  its  haughty 
and  self-confident  foe. 

It  was,  no  doubt,  in  remembrance  of  your  unanswerable  protest  in  1846, 
that  tho  "cabal"  who  so  mercilessly  persecuted  the  gallant  Hull  in  the  last 
years  of  his  life,  ten  years  later  sought  to  lay  their  hands  upon  the  naval 
wreath  which  has  encircled  your  honored  brow  since  1815,  when,  without  an 
"  act  of  Congress,"  or  any  robbing  of  the  honors  of  others,  you  reached  the 
first  place  in  the  highest  niche  of  our  temple  of  naval  fame,  by  causing  two 
ships  of  the  enemy  to  lower  the  cross  of  St.  George  to  the  stars  and  stripes, 
under  which  you  then  won  your  right  to  the  title  of  a  "  flag  officer." 

Far  better  would  it  have  been  for  the  Navy  and  the  country,  if,  in  1855, 
when  the  service  was  passed  in  review  by  the  late  irresponsible  "Naval 
Board,"  it  could  have  risen  to  a  just  view  of  its  high  duties  and  responsibili- 
ties, and,  instead  of  wishing  to  pluck  the  still  green  leaves  from  your 
laurelled  brow,  or  to  declare  that  it  had  become  seared  and  withered,  it 
could  have  sought,  by  its  aid  and  counsel,  to  place  you  officially  where  the 

iii 


IV  DEDICATION. 

people  have  ever  considered,  and  still  consider  you  to  stand,  viz.,  on  the  same 
heroic  platform  as  the  gallant  "Scott."  Then  we  might  have  avoided  wit- 
nessing another  proof  of  that  painful  saying  which  comes  down  to  us  from 
the  history  of  the  past,  that  "republics  are  proverbially  ungrateful." 

Whether  the  representatives  of  the  people  in  Congress  shall  or  shall  not 
award  to  you  the  honors  due  to  a  lifetime  of  gallant  and  distinguished  service, 
and  honor  the  country  and  the  Navy,  by  awarding  to  you  an  admiral's  com- 
mission, the  people  (their  masters)  do  and  will  continue  to  assign  to  you  the 
first  place  in  the  navy  list,  as  you  are  in  fact  the  oldest  in  service,  and  the 
only  living  representative  of  those  heroes  of  your  rank  who  won  for  the 
Navy  all  the  brilliancy  still  reflected  by  the  naval  epaulette,  even  before 
many  of  those  who  now  aspire  to  your  rank  had  smelled  salt  water  or  gun- 
powder. 

In  those  days  of  heroic  devotion,  you  were  content  to  place  your  chances 
of  promotion  upon  the  seals  of  the  commissions,  and  colors  to  be  taken  from 
the  enemy ;  but  that  was  before  the  announcement  of  the  modern  doctrine, 
which  has  declared  it  honorable  for  naval  officers  to  seize  upon  an  occa- 
sion to  supplant  a  superior  or  brother  officer  senior  in  rank,  or  to  take  his 
commission  from  him,  for  the  benefit  of  members  or  abettors  of  a  secret 
inquisition — or  to  declare  to  the  whole  grade  of  post  captains  that  if  they 
hesitated  in  taking  part  in  it,  there  were  juniors  of—"  sharper  appetites, 
whose  interest  would  coincide  with  their  duty  " — ready  to  do  it. 

Whether  you  shall  in  the  future  be  officially  styled  "Senior  Captain," 
"  Commodore"  "  Flag-  Officer"  or  "Admiral"  you  are  to-day,  as  you  have 
been  for  years,  at  the  head  of  the  Navy — which,  as  a  body,  without  regard  to 
"cliques"  and  "cabals,"  holds  you  in  all  honor  and  admiration,  as  their 
long-honored  and  world-renowned  chieftain. 

Among  whom,  though  one  of  the  humblest  of  your' friends,  I  desire  to 
subscribo  myself,  in  sincerity  and  devotion. 

Truly  yours, 

The  Author. 


NAVAL    COURT    OF  INQUIRY, 

SITTING  AT  WASHINGTON,  MAY,  1857. 

Commodore  E.  A.  F.  Lavallette,  President. 

Capt.  Wm.  J.  McCluney,  \  • 

t-t  A     A  f  Members. 

Henry  A.  Adams,    ; 

Charles  H.  Winder,  Esq.,  Judge  Advocate. 

Lieut.  W.  A.  Bartlett,  U.  S.  N., 
Appellant  from  the  arbitrary  decision  of  the  "  Navy  Board?' 

AND 

Represented  by  P.  Phillips,  Wm.  H.  Rogers,  and  T.  M.  Blount, 
Esqrs.,   Counsellors. 

The  Court  having  heard  testimony  for  fifteen  days,  Mr.  Rogers 
in  the  name  of  Lieut.  Bartlett  read  the  following  argument  or 
"  defence"  which  was  admitted  to  the  "record." 

Mr.  President,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Court  : — 

The  case  which  now  approaches  its  termination  has 
been  attended  with  greater  publicity,  and  probably  more  com- 
ment, than  have  connected  themselves  with  any  other  of  the 
findings  of  the  late  Navy  Board. 

This  prominence,  and  the  public  attention  which  has  been 
drawn  towards  me,  have  not  been  of  my  own  seeking,  but  have, 
in  a  measure,  been  thrust  upon  me. 

The  records  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  show,  that  I, 
a  petitioner  for  justice  and  redress  to  the  Legislature  of  my 
country,  was  selected  from  a  large  body  of  memorialists,  to 
endure  the  scrutiny  of  the  Naval  Committee  of  that  honorable 
body,  as  to  my  competency  for  the  service  from  which  I  had  been 
unceremoniously  "  dropped."  Whether  I  was  intended  to  be 
held  up  to  public  view  as  the  example  of  a  stern  but  necessary 
vindication  of  the  propriety  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Board  ; 

9 


10  NAVAL   COURT   OF   INQUIRY — 

or,  whether  the  examination  was  instituted  for  any  purpose  of 
redress,  I  leave  to  be  determined  by  the  character  and  spirit  of 
the  investigation  to  which  I  was  then  subjected. 

That  my  name  should  be  sounded  in  the  public  ear,  with 
echoes  yet  prolonged,  and  blazoned  in  the  sight  of  the  nation 
in  connection  with  the  vilest  epithets  and  the  most  degrading 
accusations,  was  to  me  more  painful,  and,  to  those  nearest  and 
dearest  to  me,  more  agonizing  than  death.  But  notwithstand- 
ing this  anguish,  I  could  not,  and  did  not  regret  its  cause,  for 
it  was  necessary  to  the  salvation  and  rescue  of  that  which  is 
more  valuable  to  me  than  life.  I  knew  that  if  I  could  but 
expose  the  slanders  which  had  been  hissing  their  venom  around 
me  to  the  light  of  truth,  their  fangs  were  hurtless,  their 
menaces  contemptible. 

In  the  extremity  of  persecution  I  found  another  and  a 
gracious  compensation.  If  ever  man  had  reason  to  be  proud 
of  the  sustaining  aid  of  friends,  not  merely  sympathizing,  but 
energetic  in  devotion  ;  not  only  consoling  me  by  social  counte- 
nance, but  supporting  me  by  the  dignity  of  high  station,  and 
the  power  of  intellectual  supremacy  ;  I  am  that  fortunate  per- 
son, who  now,  at  the  most  solemn  moment  of  a  varied  career, 
pause  to  look  back,  and  take  fresh  encouragement  from  the 
kindness  which  has  cheered  me  onward,  and  to  record  the 
gratitude,  full,  earnest,  and  abiding,  which  urges  this  most  fit 
acknowledgment  of  deep  obligation. 

To  you,  also,  gentlemen,  are  my  thanks  most  justly  due,  for 
the  patient  attention  and  kind  courtesy  which  have  accompa- 
nied this  investigation. 

The  publicity  with  which  my  case  has  been  invested  has  been 
productive  of  one  considerable  disadvantage.  The  partisan 
efforts  of  many  of  the  zealous  and  interested  adherents  of  the 
Navy  Board  have  been  directed  against  me  ;  and  the  enmity, 
which  for  more  than  ten  years  had  seemed  to  be  extinguished,  has 
been  raked  from  its  ashes,  and  fanned  into  rekindled  intensity. 

Without  regard  to  the  lapse  of  time  and  its  inevitable 
effect  upon  human  memory — without  consideration  of  the  injus- 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S  DEFENCE.  11 

lice  and  iniquity  of  accumulating  vague  aspersions,  unsubstan- 
tial rumors,  hostile  opinions,  and  illogical  inferences — everything 
which  rancorous  enmity  could  gather,  or  unconcealed  hatred 
distort  into  the  appearance  of  injurious  imputation,  has  been 
set  in  motion,  and  concentrated  against  me.    % 

It  is  true  that  this  record,  while  it  exhibits  an  increased 
number  of  charges,  shows  a  smaller  amount  of  what  has  here- 
tofore been  received  as  testimony;  but  this  I  owe  not  to  the 
forbearance  of  my  assailants,  but  to  the  power  of  that  truth, 
in  which,  more  than  ten  years  ago,  I  placed  and  declared  my 
trust,  and  on  which  alone  I  now  rely  for  my  final  justification. 

In  approaching  the  concluding  act  of  this  investigation,  I 
cannot,  if  I  would,  dissemble  or  conceal  the  important  and 
pervading  influence  which  its  decision  is  to  exercise  upon  my 
reputation  and  my  fate.  Subject  to  that  ultimate  appeal,  the 
generous  and  unerring  impulse  of  popular  appreciation,  which, 
truly  estimated  and  rightly  formed,  is  indeed  the  voice  of  Deity, 
you  are  the  arbiters  of  my  temporal  welfare. 

But  not  to  me  alone,  with  my  petty  interests  and  passing 
cares,  is  the  issue  of  this  proceeding  momentous.  The  cause  of 
Justice,  the  immutable  principles  of  Truth,  are  involved  in  the 
result.  These,  the  highest  interests  and  the  sublimest  ends  of 
humanity,  are,  with  my  humble  character  and  feelings,  to  be 
"  crushed  to  earth,"  or  rise  triumphant  from  the  efforts  of  a 
combination  which  has  seemed  to  be  imbued  and  guided  by  a 
fiendish  and  persistent  malice,  which,  I  trust,  will  find  few 
parallels  in  the  history  of  the  service. 

I  do  not,  for  one  moment,  doubt  that  the  members  of  this 
Court  are  not  only  disposed,  but  anxious,  to  accomplish  the 
purpose  for  which  its  remedial  jurisdiction  was  established — the 
correction  of  the  gross  errors,,  and  manifest  injustice  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  Navy  Board. 

The  character  of  this  Tribunal,  and  the  mode  in  which  its 
power  is  to  be  exercised,  are  in  striking  contrast  with  the 
arbitrary  authority  assumed  under  the  "  Act  to  promote  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  Navy."     The  statute  under  which  this  Court  is 


12  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY — 

organized  was  intended  to  amend,  not  merely  the  provisions  of 
the  original  act,  and  their  improper  construction,  but,  more 
particularly,  the  unfortunate  results  which  were  produced  under 
its  pretended  sanction.  For  securing  these  important  ends,  it 
not  only  ordains  a  radically  different  mode  of  procedure,  but 
also  supersedes  the  whole  action  of  the  late  Board,  even  to  the 
extent  of  recognizing  those  who  were  doomed  to  be  "dropped" 
from  the  service,  as  still  entitled  to  the  designation  of  officers 
of  the  Navy.  The  remedial  act,  it  is  true,  speaks  of  restoration, 
but,  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  this,  it  suspends  the  whole 
operation  and  effect  of  the  original  finding,  and  not  merely  re- 
appoints the  successful  applicant  for  relief,  but  rehabilitates 
him  to  all  his  former  rank  and  emolument. 

It  is,  however,  most  especially  in  the  mode  of  procedure  that 
we  find  the  strongest  contrast,  and  the  most  effective  reform. 
The  action  of  the  Navy  Board  was  purely  and  absolutely 
arbitrary.  Its  sole  rule  of  conduct  was  its  own  uncurbed  and 
unregulated  will.  Without  established  form  of  proceeding, 
without  notice  to  the  parties  affected,  investing  the  suggestion, 
the  whim,  or  the  vengeance  of  a  member,  with  the  competency 
of  evidence,  and  making  his  unauthorized  belief  sufficient 
ground  of  conviction,  its  course  of  inquiry  and  its  conclusions 
were  alike  despotic.  Its  jurisdiction  was  fantastically  stretched 
to  whatever  might  be  regarded  as  a  pretext  for  proscription. 
Its  power  was  boldly  extended  beyond  all  those  constitutional 
and  legal  bounds  which  had  previously  confined  every  other 
institution  of  the  country  ;  and  its  indiscriminating  sentence 
affected  with  a  common  imputation  all  the  widely  varying 
classes  and  persons  comprised  within  its  terrible  decree. 

The  appellate,  or  revisory  power — a  full  and  complete  portion 
of  which  is  vested  in  this  Court — is,  if  not  wisely  and  sufficiently 
limited  in  extent,  yet  specific  in  its  character,  and  regulated  in 
its  exercise  by  distinct  and  inflexible  rules  of  procedure.  It  is 
to  be  exercised  for  a  definite  purpose,  in  a  prescribed  mode, 
and  for  results  pre-determined  by  the  principles  which  are 
declared  to  be  imperative  in  their  ascertainment.     Nothing  is 

# 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  13 

left  to  the  mere  discretion  of  the  judges  ;  but  the  judgment  is  to 
be  regulated  by  the  same  restraints,  constitutional  and  legal, 
and  to  be  deduced  in  accordance  with  the  same  inductive 
reasoning  which  determines  the  conclusions  of  ordinary  civil 
and  criminal  Tribunals. 

This  Court  does  not  possess  even  the  same  latitude  of  pro- 
ceeding and  determination  as  a  common  Court  of  Inquiry. 
The  reason  and  the  proof  of  this  are  to  be  found  in  the  statutory 
description  of  its  jurisdiction.  An  ordinary  Court  of  Inquiry  is 
invested  with  authority  to  collect  facts,  and,  in  particular  cases, 
to  express  opinions.  But  its  report  is  merely  of  an  interlocu- 
tory and  inconclusive  character.  It  determines  nothing.  Its 
action  has  no  conclusive  effect.  Although  there  occurs  in  the 
act  of  Congress  creating  these  Courts  of  Inquiry  a  distinct 
declaration  as  to  the  law  and  regulations  by  which  they  are  to 
be  governed,  yet  it  is  manifest,  not  only  from  the  statute  itself, 
but  from  the  amendatory  purpose  of  its  creation,  that  the  sole 
object  of  this  enunciation  was  to  prevent  laxity  of  action  or  of 
principle  in  the  conduct  of  the  investigation.  When  we  come 
to  consider  the  character  and  effect  of  its  finding — vastly  differ- 
ent from  that  of  ordinary  Courts  of  Inquiry,  which  make  no 
decision — we  derive  an  irresistible  inference  that  the  restrictions 
upon  its  mode  of  proceeding  are  more  strongly  defined,  and 
necessarily  assimilated  to  the  strictest  rules  of  evidence  and 
judgment  which  regulate  civil  and  criminal  proceedings.  This 
is  evident  from  the  distinct  and  specific  character  of  the  juris- 
diction committed  to  this  Tribunal.  Unlike  an  ordinary  Court 
of  Inquiry,  which  is  empowered  to  report  facts,  and  express 
opinion,  without  any  precise  limitation  except  its  own  judg- 
ment, this  Court  has,  on  the  contrary,  a  defined,  and  precise, 
subject  matter,  towards  the  ascertainment  and  conclusive  deter- 
mination of  which  all  its  powers  and  proceedings  are  to  be 
undeviatingly  directed. 

The  practical  question  which  is  presented  in  the  present 

case,  emphatically  calls  for  the  application  of  the  strictest  rules 

of  evidence. 

1* 


14  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY — 

If  this  Court  were  called  upon,  in  the  present  instance,  to 
exercise  the  ordinary  power  of  a  Court  of  Inquiry,  that  is,  to 
collect  facts,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  propriety  of 
ulterior  proceedings  against  me,  no  great  injustice  might  be 
done  by  some  relaxation  of  the  principles  which  properly  apply 
to  the  ascertainment  of  facts. 

But  when  it  is  considered  that,  in  truth,  this  Tribunal  is  a 
Court  of  Inquiry  only  in  name — that  its  office  and  duty  are  to 
ascertain  facts  not  as  the  mere  inducement  to  a  future  proceed- 
ing, but  with  a  view  to  final  and  conclusive  judgment,  it  is 
obvious  that  justice  demands  that  all  the  legal  and  constitu- 
tional restraints  which  have  been  provided  for  the  protection 
of  accused  parties,  should  be  maintained  in  full  and  unimpaired 
vigor  ;  that  no  mere  nominal  resemblance  should  induce  or 
allow  a  departure  from  the  rigid  rules  of  legal  investigation, 
which  are  imperatively  demanded  both  by  the  character  of  the 
inquiry,  and  the  result  by  which  it  must  be  terminated. 

In  the  present  instance,  the  propriety  of  adhering  to  the 
strictest  rules  of  evidence,  is  enforced  by  the  nature  of  the 
principal  accusation.  The  charges  against  me,  if  having  any 
foundation  in  fact,  or  semblance  of  reality,  are  of  a  quasi 
criminal  character.  If  they  were  the  subject  of  investigation 
before  a  court-martial,  it  would  at  once  be  conceded  that  the 
hearing  and  consideration  must  be  regulated  by  the  most  rigid 
principles  of  law,  although  an  adverse  finding  might  inflict  a 
comparatively  trifling  punishment.  But  here,  where  the  issue 
affects  both  character,  and  continued  expulsion  from  the  ser- 
vice, it  has  been  most  strangely  contended  that  the  investiga- 
tion may  be  loosely  and  illegally  conducted,  because  the  act  of 
Congress  has  imperfectly  entitled  this  radically  different  Tribu- 
nal, a  Court  of  Inquiry.  Those  who  do  not,  or  will  not,  look 
beneath  the  mere  surface  of  words  and  names,  may  be  deceived 
by  the  false  analogy,  but  the  slightest  insight  of  the  interior 
structure  and  vital  purpose  of  the  statute  will  convince  any  re- 
flecting mind  that  it  indicates  a  wholly  different  mode  of  action. 
I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  resemblance  is  merely 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT's   DEFENCE.  15 

nominal ;  that  in  truth  the  jurisdiction  vested  in  this  Court  is 
vastly  greater  and  higher,  directed  to  different  ends,  and  pro- 
ductive of  widely  dissimilar  results. 

Besides,  it  is  a  fatal  error  to  suppose  that  there  is  in  truth 
any  recognized  laxity  of  application  of  the  rules  of  evidence  to 
proceedings  before  the  ordinary  Courts  of  Inquiry  organized,  in 
our  service,  under  the  act  of  1800. 

The  principles  applicable  to  military  cognizance  are  precisely 
identical  with  common  law  rules,  whatever  looseness  of  practice 
may  have  prevailed  in  reference  to  the  matter. 

The  Courts  of  Inquiry,  so  called,  established  under  the  act 
of  January  16th,  1851,  unlike  the  English  Tribunals  of  the 
same  name,  are  not  mere  Councils,  or  advisory  bodies,  but 
invested  with  full  judicial  powers,  conducting  their  investiga- 
tion under  the  same  solemn  sanctions  which  prevail  in  the 
administration  of  criminal  justice,  and  endowed  with  full  and 
exclusive  power  to  determine  the  matters  properly  falling  within 
their  jurisdiction.  Dissimilar,  therefore,  as  they  are  in  their 
whole  character,  there  can  be  no  proper  analogy  in  their  mode 
of  proceeding,  and  it  is  beyond  question  that  the  laxity  prevail- 
ing in  the  English  practice,  where  neither  judges  nor  witnesses 
are  sworn,  can  find  no  proper  footing  in  tribunals  so  radically 
different  as  these  in  which  my  judges  sit  to  administer  final  and 
determinate  judgment. 

Let  me,  then,  gentlemen,  as  my  first  aim,  and  your  leading 
duty,  request  you  to  look  through  this  record  with  a  calm 
judicial  scrutiny — guided  by  the  only  true  and  safe  principles — 
determined  to  separate  the  few  grains  of  fact  from  the  over- 
running bushels  of  opinions,  motives,  imputations,  and  infer- 
ences, which  have  been  so  abundantly  heaped  upon  the  case  for 
the  obvious  purpose  of  concealing  its  true  character  and 
proportions.  I  trust  it  will  be  admitted  that  I  am  asking 
simple  justice,  and  conceded  right,  when  I  demand  to  be 
judged  bj  facts,  and  not  by  opinions  of  facts  ;  to  be  tried  on 
my  own  acts,  and  not  the  inferences  drawn  from  them  by  preju- 
dice and  enmity. 


16  COURT   OF    NAVAL   INQUIRY 

It  is  proper,  then,  at  the  outset,  and  throughout  the  discus- 
sion of  the  testimony,  to  invite  particular  attention  to  the  wide 
difference  between  the  facts  alleged  against  me,  and  the  glosses 
and  coverts  which  have  invested  them  with  an  utterly  false 
appearance.  The  matters  charged,  divested  of  the  epithets 
attached  to  them  by  the  witnesses,  will  claim  a  very  different 
consideration  from  the  judicial  mind.  Their  "  native  hue  "  is 
one  thing,  but  the  tint  with  which  they  have  been  "  sicklied 
o'er  "  by  suspicion  and  prejudice,  is  quite  another. 

There  is  a  further  preliminary  consideration  which  it  is  my 
duty  to  bring  to  the  especial  notice  of  the  Court.  It  is  the 
glaring  fact  which  attracts  the  most  careless  and  casual  glance 
at  the  record  now  before  you.  Like  the  crimsoned  letters  of 
an  illuminated  manuscript,  it  allures  the  eye  whenever  you  look 
at  the  testimony  of  the  government.     Not  one  fair,  candid, 

AND  DISINTERESTED  WITNESS  HAS  BEEN  PRODUCED  AS  TO  ANY  MATE- 
RIAL matter  against  me.  They  are  nearly  all  parties  holding 
antagonistic  relations  towards  me,  as  to  the  very  matters  to  which 
their  testimony  refers.  It  would  perhaps  be  asking  too  much  to 
expect  from  human  nature  the  simple  naked  truth  under  such 
untoward  circumstances.  In  the  civil  and  criminal  courts  of 
the  country,  without  any  special  impeachment,  the  attitude  the 
principal  witnesses  hold,  and  have  for  eleven  years  held  against 
me,  would,  of  itself,  cast  discredit  upon  their  statements.  I 
know  that  upon  the  stand  there  has  been  a  studied  and  con- 
certed attempt  to  smooth  the  "  wrinkled  front "  of  that 
hostility  which  yet  shines  apparent  under  all  disguises.  I  know 
that  a  show  of  unembittered  feeling,  and  pure  and  unbiased 
motive,  has  been  ostentatiously  paraded  through  the  case;  but 
I  find  no  evidence  of  charity  or  justice,  either  in  word  or  act. 
I  should  have  hailed  with  even  grateful  satisfaction  the  least 
appearance  of  a  relaxation  of  the  unrelenting  spirit,  which 
through  time,  separation,  and  distance,  in  spite  of  good 
works  and  established  character,  has  not  only  been  sternly 
retentive  of  past  grudges,  but  keenly  alert  to  pick  up  any  new 
imputation  which  malice  could  invent,  or  hate  discover. 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  1? 

I  ask,  then,  for  my  enemies,  as  I  have  demanded  for  myself, 
that  they  shall  be  judged  by  acts.  They  combined  against  me 
at  the  time  of  the  alleged  occurrences  of  which  they  have  testi- 
fied. They  have  ever  since,  with  a  common  feeling,  and  a 
common  purpose,  clung  together.  Their  spirit  circulated,  to 
the  exclusion  of  every  other  influence  around  the  Board  of  that 
Council,  whose  action  has  stamped  its  ineffaceable  seal  with 
mournful  blackness  upon  the  Eegister  of  the  Navy.  Their 
combination  was  sustained  before  the  extraordinary  but  fruitless 
investigation  of  the  Committee  of  the  Senate.  They  are  now, 
after  the  lapse  of  eleven  years,  arrayed  in  concert  against 
me,  not  in  accordance  of  facts,  but  in  unison  of  imputation 
and  suspicion.  They  constituted  themselves  not  only  my 
accusers,  but  my  judges;  and  the  common  feeling  which  has 
animated  their  testimony  will  be  abundantly  exhibited  by  the 
dissection  to  which  I  propose  to  subject  it  presently.  In  the  mean 
time  let  this  fact  be  omnipresent  in  the  consideration  of  their 
statements,  they  were  associated  by  written  pledges,  which  in  the 
beginning  exhibited  them,  and  still  shows  them,  in  the  extraor- 
dinary combination  of  accusers,  judges,  and  witnesses.  They 
imposed  upon  themselves  a  bond  of  union  from  which  there 
was  no  escape,  which  tied  them  down  to  the  maintenance  of 
particular  allegations,  of  the  grounds  of  which  some  of  them 
admit  utter  and  entire  ignorance. 

I  proceed  to  inquire  what  have  been  and  are  the  allegations 
which  have  been  made  against  me,  and  which  are  now  relied 
upon  as  evidence  of  my  moral  unfitness  for  the  naval  service. 
Fortunately  they  are  in  such  shape  that  their  original  character 
and  development  can  be  easily  and  certainly  ascertained. 

In  the  letter  of  October  8th,  1846,  whose  sole  object  is 
expressed  to  be  a  communication  of  the  "  feelings "  of  the 
writers,  and  whose  strange  and  inconsistent  object  is  avowed  to 
be,  the  purpose  of  "placing  me  in  Coventry,"  after  I  had  "ceased 
to  be  a  member  of  the  mess,"  when  I  had  been  for  some  time 
detached  from  the  ship,  and  engaged  in  the  earnest  and  inces- 
sant discharge  of  purely  civil  duties — it  is  charged  specifically 


18  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY — 

that  they  had  become  "  convinced  "  that  I  had  "  betrayed  the 
trust  reposed  "  in  me  "  by  the  most  culpable  negligence  f  and 
vaguely  intimated  something  "  far  more  serious,"  and  "  other 
acts  "  equally  indefinite. 

When  my  "  tone  of  defiance,"  and  demand  for  an  investiga- 
tion had  "  drawn  from  them,"  as  Commander  Missroon  testifies, 
the  replies  of  the  16th  October,  this  charge  is  entirely  aban- 
doned by  the  executive  officer.  The  serious  moral  imputation 
is  abandoned,  and  the  official  allegations  against  me,  taking 
the  facts  without  the  epithets,  are  sales  of  clothes  and  cigars  ; 
speculating  upon  a  private  library  ;  soliciting  subscriptions  of 
money,  selling  an  article  of  dress  at  Monterey,  and  afterwards 
"  withdrawing  the  article." 

The  mode  in  which  these  matters  are  characterized  will  form 
an  important  subject  of  future  consideration. 

These  allegations  are  grouped  together  under  the  head  of 
11  unofficer-like  conduct." 

There  are  other  "instances"  hinted  at  which  were  supposed 
to  place  me  in  a  "  worse  light,"  but  until  towards  the  conclu- 
sion of  this  hearing,  they  had  never  been  developed,  and  were 
entirely  beyond  my  conjecture. 

In  the  rejoinder  of  the  mess,  Captain  Montgomery  is  informed 
of  the  opinion  of  the  writers  as  to  a  "palpable  mal-administra- 
tion  "  of  mess  affairs  ; — "  suspicions  of  dishonesty,"  "  strengthened 
by  delay,  and  evident  reluctance  in  yielding  up  the  mess  ac- 
counts to  his  successor"  "  confirmed  by  the  course  of  examina- 
tion." It  was  further  stated,  as  matter  of  fact,  that  I  had 
"  charged  more  than  the  actual  daily  expenses  ;"  had  "  altered 
the  items  to  suit  the  evidence,"  and  had  balanced  the  accounts 
by  a  "  convenient  insertion  of  sundries." 

The  "  other  acts,"  they  say,  "  scarcely  require  recapitulation," 
but  M  to  avoid  a  charge  of  vague  generalities  in  a  matter  so 
serious,"  they  cite  as  an  "  instance  of  disreputable  conduct," 
which  "  had  great  weight,"  the  "  smuggling  and  disposing"  of 
the  "  article  of  dress  "  at  Monterey. 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  19 

The  epithets,  glosses,  and  coverts  contained  in  this  letter 
will  be  noticed  in  their  proper  connection. 

Such  are  the  allegations  insinuated  against  me  in  1846,  and 
they  are  substantially  identical  with  the  imputations  spread 
upon  this  record  in  185?. 

I  re-appeal  to  the  "  power  of  truth,"  as  far  as  it  has  been 
elicited  by  this  investigation.  The  witnesses  against  me  all 
survive.  The  testimony  which  would  clear  up  a  portion  of  the 
imputation  has  been  precluded  by  death. 

The  first  charge,  in  order  of  time,  relates  to  the  library 
taken  on  board  the  Portsmouth  in  1844. 

I  meet  it,  with  all  the  superadded  suavity  (?)  which  the  fruit- 
ful imagination  of  the  executive  officer  lavished  upon  it.  Did  I 
"  speculate  upon  a  private  library,"  and  "  meanly  solicit  subscrip- 
tions for  its  use  ?"  There  are  two  witnesses  who  have  testified 
on  the  part  of  the  government  in  relation  to  these  books — 
Commander  Missroon  and  Purser  Watmough.  The  former 
entirely  varies  the  charge  when  he  comes  to  re-state  it  before 
this  Court.  He  now  accuses  me  of  disobedience  of  an  order  as 
to  issuing  subscription  lists  to  the  crew.  The  proof  is  thus 
stated  :  "I  found  a  subscription  list  circulating  on  the  berth- 
deck  for  the  signatures  of  the  men  by  the  signal  quarter-mas- 
ter. I  called  him  to  account,  and  he  referred  me  to  Mr. 
Bartlett.  I  questioned  Mr.  Bartlett  concerning  this  disobe- 
dience to  my  order,  when  he  at  first  denied  that  he  had 
authorized  the  circulation  of  it,  and  subsequently  tacitly  admit- 
ted that  the  quarter-master  might  have  misunderstood  him.77  Com- 
mander Missroon  has  not  vouchsafed  to  explain,  metaphysically 
or  practically,  how  there  can  be  such  a  thing  as*  a  tacit  admis- 
sion of  such  misunderstanding,  or  how  that  affects  or  dimin- 
ishes the  force  of  the  previous  denial.  It  becomes,  therefore, 
necessary  to  analyze,  and  endeavor  to  comprehend  this  extra- 
ordinary disobedience.  A  tacit  admission  is  in  itself  easily 
understood.  It  is  the  acquiescence  implied  from  the  silence  of  a 
party  when  personally  charged  with  any  matter  of  accusation. 
But  the  tacit  admission  by  one  person  of  a  misconception  upon 


20  NAVAL   COURT   OF   INQUIRY 

the  part  of  another  would  seem  to  be  beyond  the  reach  of  mere 
human  understanding.  Now  it  was  perfectly  apparent  that 
the  testimony  of  Commander  Missroon  was  very  carefully  pre- 
pared, and  was  collated,  with  matters  subsequently  promul- 
gated from  other  sources,  therefore  we  must  consider  his 
phrases  as  important.  If,  then,  I  "  tacitly  admitted,"  as  there 
appears  to  have  been  no  other  person  present,  he  must  have 
made  some  charge  or  assertion,  and  that  charge  or  assertion 
must  have  been  precisely  and  identically  what  I  "tacitly  admit- 
ted." He  then  charged  that  the  signal  quarter-master  had 
misunderstood  me  in  regard  to  the  subscription-lists.  I  tacitly 
admitted  that  he  had.  The  question  now  occurs,  how  did  that 
admission  affect  my  previous  denial  as  to  authorizing  the  circu- 
lation of  subscription-lists  among  the  crew  ?  Instead  of  impair- 
ing its  force,  it  effectually  and  completely  confirms  it  ;  and 
upon  Commander  Missroon's  own  statement  I  stand  exon- 
erated from  this  charge  of  disobedience.  I  need,  therefore, 
scarcely  refer  to  the  testimony  which  almost  in  the  same  breath 
had  just  before  fallen  from  the  same  lips.  "  He  never  failed 
to  carry  out  the  orders  given  to  him  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
executive  and  the  captain." 

But,  again,  I  demand,  where  is  the  proof  of  the  original 
charge  of  speculation,  and  meanness  in  relation  to  this  library  ? 
Purser  Watmough  says,  that  I  solicited  subscriptions  from  the 
officers  ;  that  he,  himself,  subscribed.  He  does  not  attempt, 
however,  to  characterize  it  as  in  any  respect  improper.  Com- 
mander Missroon  states  that  it  was  "reported"  to  him,  that  two 
passengers  had  been  solicited  to  subscribe — Dr.  Chase  and  Mr. 
Delazon  Smith.  In  the  cross-examination  he  said  that  Purser 
Watmough  had  made  the  report.  Admitting,  for  the  moment, 
the  literal  truth  of  these  statements,  I  ask  from  what  is  derived 
the  imputation  of  meanness,  or  the  proof  of  speculation  1  Purser 
Watmough,  however,  is  entirely  silent  as  to  his  alleged  report. 

Further,  it  appears  from  the  testimony  that  the  library  was 
introduced  with  the  express  assent  of  the  commanding  officer 
of  the  ship — that  he  approved  both  the  object  proposed  and  the 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  21 

result  accomplished,  and  I  think,  upon  his  statement,  without  a 
superadded  word  of  mine,  I  may  fairly  leave  this  matter  to  the 
consideration  of  the  Court,  and  (if  it  so  please  him)  to  the  con- 
tinued strictures  of  Commander  Missroon  ;  unless,  indeed,  in 
this,  as  well  as  in  other  things,  he  is  content  to  "  abide  by 
what  Captain  Montgomery  may  say." 

Well,  Captain  Montgomery  does  say,  distinctly  and  emphati- 
cally, not  only  that  he  authorized  the  introduction  of  the  library, 
but  approved  of  the  influence  it  contributed  to  the  enjoyment 
of  the  crew,  and  the  promotion  of  good  discipline  ;  and  would 
be  glad  to  have  another  in  the  ship  he  now  commands,  upon  the 
same  terms. 

I  will  but  add,  in  regard  to  this,  as  well  as  all  the  other  im- 
putations against  me,  that  the  approbation  of  one  such  man  as 
John  B.  Montgomery,  outweighs,  in  my  estimation,  the  censure 
of  a  whole  ship-load  of  some  others. 

The  next  item  of  charge,  in  chronological  relation,  refers  to 
the  allegation  which  is  thus  set  forth  in  the  official  communica- 
tion of  the  executive  officer  of  the  Portsmouth  :  "in  bringing 
to  sea  a  stock  of  clothing,  cloths,  cigars,  etc.,  which  were 
vended  to  his  brother  officers  and  others,  making  his  state-room 
a  kind  of  huckster's  shop,  and  degrading,  thereby,  the  respect- 
ability of  the  ward-room." 

The  "  Coventry  "  letter,  and  the  subsequent  rejoinder  of  the 
associates  of  the  mess,  are  entirely  silent  upon  this  subject.  The 
witnesses,  whose  signatures  are  affixed  to  those  communications, 
with  the  exception  of  Commander  Missroon  and  Purser  Wat- 
mough,  have  not  testified  one  syllable  upon  this  point.  The 
allegation,  as  framed  by  the  executive  officer,  and  which  he 
pledged  his  "  immediate  readiness"  to  submit,  with  all  the  form 
and  circumstance  of  charge  and  specification,  extends  in  terms 
to  the  declaration,  that  I  kept  a  retail  shop  in  my  state-room, 
where  I  vended  to  "  officers  and  others  "  "  a  stock  of  clothing 
cloths,  cigars,  e£c,"  the  et  caetera  including,  I  presume,  the  ordi- 
nary supplies  of  a  "  huckster's  shop,"  into  which  I  converted 
my  state-room,  and  thereby  "  degraded"  the  ward-room. 


22  NAVAL   COURT   OF   INQUIRY 

If  this  charge  be  true,  it  was  easily  susceptible  of  complete 
establishment,  by  positive  proof.  Here  is  a  fact  proclaimed, 
which  needed  no  opinions  or  inferences,  but  merely  assertion.  It 
must  have  been  within  the  knowledge  of  every  inmate  of  the 
ward-room,  which  was  "degraded"  by  its  contact  with  the 
"shop." 

Why,  then,  have  we  been  left  to  infer  the  existence  of  so  ex- 
traordinary a  spectacle  occurring  in  the  ward-room  of  a  man-of- 
war,  from  the  solitary  fact  that  I  permitted  Mr.  Delazon  Smith 
to  have  a  few  shirts,  as  a  matter  of  accommodation,  and  that  I 
received  the  fair  value  of  the  property  so  disposed  of  for  his 
convenience  ? 

What  criticism,  however  prejudiced,  can  establish  any  dis- 
tinction between  that  transaction,  and  the  arrangement  by 
which,  for  Dr.  Duval's  convenience — and  he  says  it  was  a  great 
relief  to  him — I  took  from  him  the  box  of  china  for  the  specific 
value  of  twelve  dollars  ? 

Commander  Missroon  has  expended  a  vast  deal  of  ingenuity 
in  endeavoring  to  make  at  least  verbal  distinctions  between  the 
purchases  and  sales  of  other  officers  and  those  attributed  to  me. 
When  interrogated  as  to  his  own  transactions  of  this  character, 
he,  at  first,  made  a  peremptory  denial  of  any  such  occurrence. 
His  subsequent  admissions  and  elaborate  explanations  are  fresh 
in  the  memory  of  the  Court,  and  are  spread  at  great  length, 
and  with  extraordinary  accompaniments  upon  the  record.  To 
this  I  have  no  objection,  except  that  I  do  not  think  such  harm- 
less trifles  require  a  studied  and  prepared  apology.  What  I 
complain  of  is  simply  this  :  when  I  sold,  what  the  nature  of  the 
articles,  as  well  as  the  testimony  in  the  case  show  to  have  been 
necessary  for  the  accommodation  of  others,  the  act  is  stigma- 
tised by  the  strongest  epithets  and  the  most  sonorous  adjectives  ; 
but  when  Commander  Missroon  does  precisely  the  same  thing, 
the  transaction  is  veiled  by  the  daintiest  covering,  and  delicately 
entitled  a  "  transfer  /" 

I  have  submitted  to  the  Court  the  evidence  of  the  real  char- 
acter of  the  transactions  between  Mr.  Delazon  Smith  and  myself, 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  23 

by  which  it  distinctly  appears  that  there  was  not  a  mere  isolated 
sale  to  him,  but  a  series  of  interchanges  of  mutual  accommo- 
dation. 

I  little  thought  when,  in  accordance  with  my  usual  habit,  I 
placed  away  that  little  scrap  of  soiled  paper,  that  it  would  ever 
become  an  instrument  of  evidence,  important  to  the  defence  of 
my  character,  and  be  produced  before  a  tribunal  like  this,  in- 
vested with  the  dignity  of  a  certificate,  attested  by  the  national 
arms  and  the  signature  of  the  venerable  Secretary  of  State. 

We  know  not  what  an  influence  the  merest  trifles  may  some- 
times exercise  over  our  future  fate. 

But  I  ask  again,  where  is  the  proof  of  the  charge  as  made  ? 
If  it  is  too  largely  asserted,  and  no  evidence  exists  to  make  it 
good,  it  falls  back,  like  living  fire,  upon  the  head  of  him  who 
unjustly  preferred  so  outrageous  and  unjustifiable  an  accusation. 

I  proceed  now  to  consider  the  few  circumstances  exhibited  by 
the  record  in  reference  to  the  "  article  of  dress  n  alleged  to  have 
been  sold,  "  at  an  exorbitant  advance  upon  its  cost,  to  a  lady 
at  Monterey."  When  the  executive  officer  held  himself  in 
"  immediate  readiness  "  to  include  this  matter  in  his  charges 
and  specifications,  why  was  it  necessary  to  affect  an  apparent 
mystery  in  reference  to  the  character  of  the  "  article  ?"  Was  it 
a  more  sonorous  allegation  to  confuse  it  with  the  acknowledged 
indescribables  of  a  lady's  toilette,  and  to  connect  with  it  the 
ominous  terms  "private"  and  "secret?"  In  the  subsequent 
letter  of  the  confederates  of  the  mess,  the  same  significant  mys- 
tery is  observed.  The  charge  is  also  associated  with  new 
adjuncts  and  more  impressive  adjectives.  It  is  alleged  that  I 
"  disgraced  myself  as  an  officer,  and  reflected  discredit  on  my 
ship."  The  imputation  of  "  smuggling  "  is  boldly  attached  to 
the  transaction  ;  the  idea  of  "  exorbitant  advance  "  is  repeated  ; 
my  "sense  of  impropriety"  is  said  to  have  been  "evinced," 
and  the  assertion  of  "  shameful  equivocation,"  is  superadded. 
The  previously  asserted  circumstance,  of  withdrawal  of  the  "  arti- 
cle," is  omitted.  The  names  of  Messrs.  Missroon,  Watmough  and 
Harrison    are,    among   others,   affixed    to    these    allegations. 


24  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY — 

They  have  been  confronted  with  me  before  the  Court,  and  what 
do  they  now  assert  ?  Purser  Watmough  cannot  declare  that  I 
ever  had  such  an  article  in  my  possession.  Lieut.  Harrison 
does  not  allude  to  it.  Commander  Missroon  asserts  that  I 
confessed  the  fact,  withdrew  the  article,  and  excused  myself  for 
the  sale,  because  I  did  not  want  the  "  shawl"  for  that  appears 
to  have  been  the  mysterious  "article;"  and  it  was  difficult  to 
preserve. 

I  have  but  a  single  comment  to  make  upon  this  statement. 
It  depends  upon  the  memory  of  Commander  Missroon,  who 
says  that  he  is  certain  of  the  substance  of  the  various  conversa- 
tions, but  will  not  be  understood  as  attempting  to  give  precise 
words. 

And  yet  in  a  matter  like  this  the  most  unintentional  varia- 
tion may  give  a  wholly  different  color  to  the  entire  transaction. 
I  must  therefore  resort  to  the  only  test  within  my  reach,  for  the 
purpose  of  questioning  the  accuracy  of  Commander  Missroon's 
recollection.  The  experience  of  all  who  have  been  conversant 
with  the  administration  of  justice,  or  have,  in  any  way,  been 
under  the  necessity  of  scrutinizing  human  testimony,  will  assure 
them  of  the  strange  facility  with  which  men  can  persuade 
themselves  of  the  truth  of  something  they  have  merely  fancied 
they  have  seen  or  heard.  The  popular  paradox  we  sometimes 
find  applied  to  individuals,  stigmatizing  them  as  so  given 
to  lying  as  to  believe  their  own  falsehoods,  is  founded  upon 
this  experience.  It  is  unquestionably,  and  frequently  true, 
that  honest,  but  credulous  or  interested  parties,  sincerely  per- 
suade themselves  of  the  truth  and  reality  of  matters  which  have 
no  actual  existence.  The  process  of  self-delusion,  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  is,  perhaps,  common  to  all  men. 

I  believe  that  in  the  present  instance,  Commander  Missroon 
has  heard  the  statement  he  makes  from  some  other  person,'  and 
has  erroneously  attributed  it  to  me.  I  found  this  conjecture 
upon  the  fact,  that  he  admits  his  original  information  to  be 
derived  from  a  report,  and  more  particularly  from  the  strongly 
suggestive  circumstance,  that  in  his  official  letter  of  Oct.  16th, 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  25 

1846,  he  expressly  states,  "  my  information  on  the  foregoing 
points  was  mainly  derived  from  the  ward-room  officers,"  and 
does  Dot  insinuate  a  word  about  any  confession,  nor  does  the 
letter  of  the  confederate  members  of  the  mess,  bearing  the 
same  date,  make  any  allusion  to  an  admission,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, repels  the  inference  by  what  it  does  actually  charge,  as 
well  as  by  the  subsequent  boast  that  what  they  do  assert  is 
''susceptible  of  the  fullest  proofs."  They  have  probably  at 
length  discovered  the  difference  between  allegation  founded  on 
suspicion  and  surmise,  and  proof  based  upon  substantial  facts. 

But,  however  this  may  be,  I  am  now  on  trial  in  defence  of 
my  honor,  as  well  as  my  interests,  and  I  therefore  solemnly 
repeat  what  I  have  uniformly  asserted  in  reference  to  this 
charge.  I  presented  the  shawl  to  the  lady  in  question.  She 
desired  to  pay  for  it,  which  I  declined.  When  her  husband 
came  home,  he,  in  return,  presented  me  with  a  horse  of  about 
equivalent  value,  which  I  rode  as  long  as  we  remained  at 
Monterey,  and  left  in  his  stables  at  my  departure. 

This  last  fact  is  positively  established  by  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Revere  ;  but  of  the  main  fact  that  the  shawl  was  a  present 
and  not  a  "transfer"  I  cannot  offer  to  the  Court  the  only 
possible  legal  proof  in  consequence  of  the  death  of  both  the 
parties. 

But  I  ask,  and  the  question  is  both  suggestive  and  signifi- 
cant, would  Mr.  Howard  have  been  likely  to  present  me  a 
horse  except  in  return  for  something,  or,  if  I  had  meanly  sold 
his  wife  a  shawl  at  an  exorbitant  advance  upon  its  cost  ? 

Before  entering  into  the  question  of  the  mess-accounts  on 
board  the  Portsmouth  in  1846,  I  propose  to  submit  a  few 
remarks  in  reference  to  a  point  which,  although  relating  to  this 
matter,  was  never  made  a  part  of  the  difficulty,  and  therefore 
properly  demands  a  separate  examination. 

Dr.  Duval  states  that  he  paid  to  me  the  initiation  fee — which 
the  Court  will  understand  to  be  the  value  of  the  interest  he 
acquired  on  the  mess-furniture  and  stores  on  hand — and  $30 
on  account  of  mess-fund.     That  as  to  any  further  payments  he 


26  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY — 

desired  me  not  to  draw  on  his  account  from  the  purser,  as  he 
had  in  his  possession  Mexican  coin  which  he  would  prefer  to 
apply  to  that  purpose.  That  he  afterwards  learned  by  a  verbal 
statement  from  the  purser,  at  the  time  of  signing  his  books, 
that  $30  more  had  been  drawn  by  the  caterer  on  his  account. 
That  he  never,  at  the  time,  nor  on  any  subsequent  occasion 
during  the  intervening  period  of  eleven  years,  had  alluded  to 
this  matter,  except  in  conversation  with  the  purser  ;  and  that 
he  never,  in  any  mode,  apprised  me  of  his  suspicion  or  belief, 
that  he  had  overpaid  me  that,  or  any  other  account. 

Admitting  this  alleged  over-payment  to  have  been  actually 
made,  and  unaccounted  for,  it  is  difficult  to  comprehend  how 
the  most  rabid  animosity  could  attach  to  it  any  other  inference 
except  that  it  was  an  involuntary  error,  and  this  seems  to  have 
been  the  idea  suggested  originally,  in  the  mind  of  Dr.  Duval — 
indeed,  he  so  states  expressly  ;  but  I  mean  to  demonstrate 
that  the  error  is  all  in  the  impressions  of  the  witness,  and  that 
the  circumstance  never  could  have  had  an  actual  existence. 

The  first  question  which  occurs  is  simply  this  :  has  any  such 
payment  been  proved  ?  When  Dr.  Duval  was  about  to  state 
the  purely  hearsay  testimony  upon  which  the  matter  rests,  it 
was  objected  that  it  was  not  competent  evidence,  and  the  pro- 
per legal  proof  was  distinctly  designated.  The  very  statement 
of  the  witness  discloses,  without  the  exception  noted  on  the 
record,  two  distinct  objections  to  its  character  and  validity — 
either  of  them  sufficient  to  show  the  necessity  of  its  absolute 
rejection.  He  stated  that  it  was  mentioned  to  him  by  Purser 
Watmough,  when  he  signed  his  books.  This  declaration  of  itself 
indicates  two  better  sources  of  information,  the  evidence  of 
Purser  Watmough,  and  the  exhibition  of  his  books.  These 
were  indicated  by  the  objection  taken  as  the  only  competent 
evidence,  and  it  was  understood  that  the  books  were  sent  for 
from  the  Department.  They  were  not  produced  ; "  nor  was 
Purser  Watmough,  although  subsequently  recalled,  interrogated 
upon  the  subject.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable,  no  such  facts 
could  be  made  to  appear ! 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  2T 

But  again,  if  any  such  sum  had  been  received,  it  was 

FULLY   ACCOUNTED   FOR. 

If  there  be  any  fact  distinctly  proved  in  relation  to  the  mess 
accounts,  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  all  the  witnesses — 
including  Dr.  Duval — it  is,  that  there  was  no  question  whatever 
in  relation  to  the  debit  side  of  the  mess  accounts.  Dr.  Duval 
says,  "There  was  no  suggestion  from  any  quarter  that  Mr. 
Bartlett  had  not  charged  himself  with  all  that  he  ought  to 
have  been  charged  with."  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the 
investigation  of  the  mess  accounts  occurred  immediately  after  I 
had  ceased  to  be  caterer.  Dr.  Duval  and  Purser  Watmough 
were  irritated  parties  to  the  controversy.  The  $30,  if  drawn 
at  all,  had  very  recently  been  paid.  It  was  fresh  in  the  know- 
ledge of  the  purser.  The  amount  received  from  the  purser  was 
the  prominent  item  in  the  debit  side  of  the  account.  If  not 
including  the  whole  amount  drawn,  the  fact  was  susceptible  of 
instant  demonstration.  If  included,  it  was  accounted  for  by 
me  ;  and  if  there  was  any  error  as  relates  to  Dr.  Duval's  proper 
assessment,  it  rests  with  the  purser's  pro-rata  distribution  of 
the  whole  amount  drawn.  If  pure  mathematical  reasoning  can 
lead  to  any  surer  conclusion,  I  have  not  the  ability  to  under- 
stand the  force  and  relation  of  admitted  facts. 

The  evidence  of  guilt  upon  which  the  prosecuting  witnesses 
rely  is  to  be  found  almost  exclusively  in  the  demeanor,  which 
by  the  easy  coloring  of  imagination,  they  are  pleased  to  impute 
to  me  with  so  lavish  an  unanimity. 

I  might  fairly  say  to  this  Court  that  the  law  books  declare 
such  tests  to  be  both  unreliable  and  dangerous.  I  might 
appeal  to  experience  and  common  sense  as  to  the  absurdity  of 
drawing  serious  conclusions  from  such  uncertain  and  variable 
premises.  I  prefer,  however,  to  rely  upon  what  I  trust  will  be 
considered  sufficient  proof  of  the  contrary  of  these  assertions. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  several  witnesses  adduce 
neither  words  nor  acts  to  support  their  assertions  in  regard  to 
the  motives  by  which  they  chose  to  suppose  I  was  actuated. 
They  inferred  guilt  from  my  looks  and  manner. 


28  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

Commander  Missroon  says  I  "  looked  confused"  upon  one 
occasion  ;  in  another  connection  he  states  that  I  "  looked  very 
much  depressed." 

Lieutenant  Harrison  declares  that  my  manner  was  "  agitated 
and  at  times  depressed." 

Purser  Watnough  "thinks"  I  "did  not  meet  the  allegations 
as  an  Ijonest  man." 

Dr.  Duval  testifies  that  I  "  exhibited  a  great  deal  of  agita- 
tion." 

In  these  extracts  I  believe  I  have  stated  each  and  every  of 
the  allegations  of  the  witnesses,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  use 
their  favorite  phrase. 

Need  I  seriously  ask  this  Court,  whose  members  have  from 
"  old  experience,"  a  large  and  varied  knowledge  of  human 
nature — whether  confusion,  agitation,  and  depression  are  not  the 
indications  of  wrongly  suspected  honesty,  rather  than  of  con- 
scious guilt.  Guilt  generally  assumes  boldness  and  defiance  ; 
innocence  very  frequently  exhibits  confusion,  and  almost  invari- 
ably agitation  and  depression,  and  is  sometimes  utterly  crushed 
and  confounded. 

May  I  not  fairly  claim  to  weigh  against  this  interested  testi- 
mony, concerted  in  1846  even  to  the  very  terms  of  their  accu- 
sation, and  necessarily  adhered  to  since,  the  impartial  and 
reasonable  statements  of  Captain  Watson  and  Mr.  Eevere. 

Captain  Watson  distinctly  and  emphatically  declares  that 
my  "  bearing  was  that  of  a  man  who  had  been  seriously 
injured,"  and  Mr.  Eevere  uses  the  same  term  which  had  been 
previously  used  by  others  of  the  witnesses,  "agitated,"  to 
express  a  totally  different  conception. 

But  in  addition  to  this,  I  have  fortunately  the  recorded 
evidence  of  what  my  feelings  really  were  in  the  words  of  my 
communication  to  my  messmates  at  the  very  time  of  the  trans- 
action. I  say  to  them,  "  the  state  of  my  mind  is  too  painful  to 
be  borne." 

I  simply  ask  you,  is  not  that  statement  the  key  and  explana- 
tion of  the  whole  matter  ? 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  29 

But  is  it  not  a  novelty  in  the  administration  of  justice  to  pro- 
pose to  convict  a  man  because  lie  looks  guilty }  even  if  we  are 
quite  sure  we  have  his  looks  interpreted  by  an  unjaundiced 
vision.  It  would  be  a  summary  process  to  dispense  with  proof 
of  the  offence  charged,  even  upon  the  completest  evidence  of 
confusion,  agitation  and  depression.  Such  a  course  might  accord 
with  the  prompt  injustice  of  the  Navy  Board,  but  it  will  not  be 
pursued  by  a  Court  who  have  placed  upon  this  very  record  that 
solemn  pledge,  "  well  and  truly  to  examine  and  inquire,  accord- 
ing to  the  evidence,  into  the  matter  now  before  you,  without 
partiality  or  prejudice." 

Under  that  sanction,  I  know  that  you  will  demand  something 
more  than  the  suspicious  inferences  and  opinions  of  witnesses  to 
convict  me  of  the  specific  charges  of  dishonesty  and  peculation, 
or  embezzlement. 

The  charge  necessarily  involves  this  distinct  specification, 
that  in  some  mode  I  converted  to  my  own  use  the  money  placed 
in  my  hands  for  the  purposes  of  the  mess.  I  am  not  to  be  tried 
much  less  convicted  of  irregularity  in  my  accounts,  for  "  confu- 
sion worse  confounded  "  in  that  respect  would  have  no  tendency 
to  show  that  I  am  morally  unfit  for  the  service.  But,  to  advert 
for  a  moment  more  to  the  fancied  indications  of  guilt,  allow  me 
to  ask  why  I  should  have  exhibited  in  October,  upon  the  repe- 
tition and  formal  embodiment  of  the  "  allegations,"  a  defiance 
and  denial  which  my  accusers  would  have  you  believe  I  was 
totally  wanting  in  before  ?  The  answer  is  easily  found.  As 
long  as  these  suspicious  gentlemen  muttered  their  imputations 
in  their  own  circle,  I  could  only  keep  aloof,  but  the  moment 
their  innuendoes  were  converted  into  something  that  looked  like 
a  charge  (although  notwithstanding  the  high  sense  of  duty  which 
induced  them  to  be  cold  and  distant,  it  was  even  then  intended 
only  as  a  means  of  private  annoyance),  I  promptly  met  them 
"  with  the  most  positive  denial."  After  my  exposure  of  the 
communication  of  October  8,  and  the  stand  I  took  in  reference 
to  the  matter,  nothing  more  is  heard  of  conscious  guilt ;  but 

2 


30  NAVAL   COURT   OF   INQUIRY — 

another  assumption  is  gradually  built  up — namely,  that  I  failed 
to  insist  upon  an  investigation. 

By  what  time  this  charge  became  perfected  it  is  impossible  to 
conjecture.  It  was  first  heard  of  in  the  Navy  Board,  to  which 
immaculate  tribunal  "  it  appeared"  "  sustained"  by  the  "  per- 
sonal knowledge "  of  a  "  member,"  notwithstanding  that  same 
member,  in  his  testimony  before  this  Court,  admits  that  there 
was  no  opportunity  of  trial  until  November,  1841,  and  it  appears 
by  the  testimony  of  Captain  Montgomery,  that  the  Court  in 
question  broke  up  suddenly,  and  that  really  there  was  no  oppor- 
tunity even  then. 

But  the  question  now  to  be  considered  is  the  amount  and 
character  of  the  proof  upon  the  record  to  substantiate  the  spe- 
cific charge  of  dishonesty  in  the  management  of  the  mess  funds. 

Where  do  we  find  upon  this  record  one  tangible,  well-ascer- 
tained fact  which,  either  alone  or  in  combination,  has  even  a 
tendency  to  prove  the  charge,  or  even  to  raise  a  just  imputation 
from  any  portion  of  the  transaction  ?  What  witness  has  stated 
a  single  circumstance  which  is  entitled  to  the  character  of  evi- 
dence, much  less  proof  ? 

Purser  Watmough  was  the  first  witness  examined  upon  this 
point.  It  is  not  very  material  to  inquire  whether  the  memory 
of  this  witness  is  at  all  reliable,  because  he  discloses  no  fact 
save  one,  and  that  is  the  admitted  fact  that  I  was  caterer.  It 
may,  however,  be  mentioned  incidentally,  that  he  misplaced  the 
subsequent  court-martial  by  a  whole  year,  and  prolonged  my 
absence  from  the  ship  to  a  much  greater  time  than  it  actually 
covered. 

The  principal  matter  connected  with  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Duval  I  have  separately  discussed. 

The  only  additional  facts  stated  by  him  are,  that  in  about 
two  months  after  leaving  Mazatlan  the  provisions  were  found 
nearly  exhausted. 

This  is  stated  more  strongly  than  most  probably  the  witness 
intended,  as  he  said  we  found  "no  provisions" — "literally 
nothing." 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  31 

He  says  further,  that  I  produced  accounts,  which  he  (among 
others)  partially  examined.  He  subsequently  stated  several 
small  matters  going  to  show  irregularities  in  the  accounts — that 
they  were  on  different  sheets — the  prices  opposite,  but  the  sum 
total  carried  to  a  different  piece — that  errors  were  found  in  one 
or  two  instances,  which,  when  pointed  out,  were  corrected  ;  but 
"  that  these  mistakes  involved  no  material  amount." 

The  testimony  of  Lieutenant  Harrison  goes  solely  to  the 
points  of  my  demeanor  and  the  feelings  of  the  mess.  He  stated 
nothing  in  reference  to  the  accounts  or  transactions  connected 
with  them. 

Commander  Missroon  states,  first,  that  he  informed  me  of  the 
necessity  of  procuring  a  six  months  supply  of  groceries,  although 
not  at  liberty  to  communicate  where  the  ship  was  going  that 
evening — that  I  informed  him  in  the  afternoon  that  I  had  pro- 
cured supplies  for  six  months  ;  but  that  in  a  few  weeks  they 
began  to  be  exhausted,  and  this  caused  dissatisfaction.  He 
proceeds  to  state  as  follows  :  "  A  short  time  subsequent  to  this 
the  accounts  were  submitted  to  the  mess,  the  sums  originally 
charged  had  been  changed  to  suit  the  statements  of  the  ward- 
room steward,  with  sundries  inserted  to  balance  the  account." 

I  believe  these  references  and  extracts  include  a  fair  recapitu- 
lation of  all  the  facts  alleged  by  the  several  witnesses  in  regard 
to  the  mess  accounts. 

It  will  be  remembered,  that  in  the  joint  letter  of  October 
16th,  1846,  I  was  charged  with  "dishonesty  in  the  disposal  of 
funds,"  and  "  delay  and  evident  reluctance  in  yielding  up  the 
mess  accounts."  It  is  true  it  was  alleged  in  the  form  of  "  sus- 
picion," but  as  they  have  been  assumed  by  the  witnesses  as 
equivalent  to  proof,  it  is  scarcely  worth  while  to  note  the  dis- 
tinction. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  however,  that  not  only  are  such 
charges  or  "  suspicions  "  not  now  sustained  by  proof,  but  as  to 
the  latter,  expressly  disproved  by  the  very  parties  who  made  the  alle- 
gation in  1846.  They  all  concur  in  the  statement  that  my  ac- 
counts, loose  sheets  and  all,  were  submitted  to  them  and  examined  by 


32  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

all,  within,  at  the  furthest,  two  or  three  days  after  dissatisfaction 
was  exhibited ! 

It  will  also  be  remembered  that  Captain  Watson  declares 
that  I  submitted  my  accounts  and  vouchers  for  examination 
promptly,  without  delay  or  reluctance. 

Commander  Missroon  who,  in  1846,  stated,  under  his 
hand,  that  I  had  exhibited  "  delay  and  evident  reluctance  in 
yielding  up  the  mess  accounts,"  now,  in  the  presence  of  this 
Court,  and  upon  its  record  has  inscribed  his  own  condemnation, 
when  he  declares  :  "  Mr.  Bartlett  came  to  my  room  and  re- 
quested me  to  look  at  some  accounts,  which  I  declined  to  do." 
"  He  urged  me  to  examine  the  accounts,  and  I  yielded." 

I  have  this  further  to  say  in  reference  to  the  testimony  of 
Commander  Missroon  :  Either  he  did  not  advise  the  purchase 
of  six  months'  supply  of  groceries,  or  he  did  not  know  where 
the  ship  was  going,  for  we  arrived  in  twenty-two  days  at  a  port, 
(Monterey,)  where  there  were  equal  facilities  in  procuring  such 
supplies  as  at  Mazatlan.  Again,  it  is  simply  impossible  that  I 
could  have  informed  him  I  had  procured  six  months7  supply,  as 
the  vouchers  show  no  such  amount  purchased.  Further,  it  is 
evident,  when  he  speaks — in  the  language  I  have  quoted — of 
the  "  accounts  submitted  to  the  mess,"  he  alludes  to  the  identi- 
cal accounts  now  before  this  Court.  A  mere  inspection  will 
prove  that  they  contain  no  such  word  or  charge  as  "sundries," 
but  that  the  specific  and  most  minute  items  are  uniformly 
entered. 

The  utter  want  of  correct  and  precise  recollection,  has  been 
remarkably  exhibited  upon  those  pages  of  the  record,  which 
show  his  conflicting  statements  and  amendments  in  regard  to 
the  simple  matter  of  the  presence  of  the  Flag  Ship  at  San 
Francisco,  between  the  1st  of  July  and  the  ensuing  Octo- 
ber. 

The  defective  memory  of  this  gentleman,  and  others  of  the 
witnesses  in  reference  to  facts  and  things,  would,  in  itself,  be 
nowise  unnatural  after  the  lapse  of  eleven  years  ;  but  when 
brought  into  contrast  with  the  distinct  and  positive  recollection 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  33 

of  looks,  feelings,  motives,  opinions,  and  words,  it  is  certainly  mere 
charity  to  pronounce  it  remarkable  ! 

The  original  cause  of  any  slight  confusion  which  may,  in  the 
first  place,  have  existed  in  the  mess  accounts  (although  I  admit 
none),  grew  out  of  the  condition  of  the  steward  on  the  day  of 
sailing  from  Mazatlan.  The  ship's  log  shows  that  on  that  day 
it  was  my  watch  from  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning  until 
the  same  hour  of  the  evening.  Although  relieved  for  a  short 
time  and  enabled  to  get  on  shore,  I  was  obliged  to  employ  the 
steward  and  others  to  make  purchases  for  me.  The  steward 
came  off  intoxicated,  and  at  first  declared  I  had  given  him  no 
money.  I  afterwards  found  some  of  my  vouchers  in  his  pocket. 
Commander  Missroon,  although  admitting — not  in  direct  terms, 
but  generally — that  the  steward  was  worthless,  endeavors  to 
argue  against  the  probability  of  his  intoxication  in  this  instance, 
because,  had  he  been  so,  he  would  have  paid  no  attention 
to  what  he  said.  I  think  the  Court  will  scarcely  entertain 
a  doubt  about  this  matter,  when  they  recall  the  distinct  and 
positive  recollection  of  Captain  Watson,  who  had  charge  of  the 
guard  and  prisoners,  that  the  man  u  did  come  off  intoxicated,  and 
was  put  in  the  '  brig.1 " 

But  the  only  important  question  to  be  determined,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  in  relation  to  the  mess  accounts,  is,  were  they 
examined  and  settled  by  the  mess,  or  any  persons  on  their 
behalf  ? 

If  any  matter  can  be  established  beyond  doubt  by  human 
testimony,  surely  this  has  been  fully  and  perfectly  proved  by 
the  whole  concurring  testimony  on  both  sides. 

Neither  Purser  Watmough  nor  Lieutenant  Harrison  states  in 
express  terms  whether  they  did  or  did  not  assist  in  the  investi- 
gation. Captain  Watson  and  Mr.  Eevere  both  state  that  Wat- 
mough participated.  Dr.  Duval  admits  that  he  made  examina- 
tion up  to  the  period  of  his  joining  the  ship.  Commander  Miss- 
roon informs  you  that  when  urged  he  inspected  them. 
Mr.  Eevere  states  that  he  went  through  them  to  his  entire 
satisfaction.    Captain  Watson  proves  that  there  was  a  thorough 


34  NAVAL  COURT  OP  INQUIRY — 

and  complete  scrutiny,  extending  through  nearly  a  whole  day, 
and  that  everything  was  found  right  ;  and  he  and  Mr.  Kevere 
coincide  in  the  declaration,  that  the  result  of  the  examination 
was  satisfactory  to  the  whole  mess.  All  the  facts,  and  all  the 
probabilities  accord  with  the  statements  of  these  two  gentle- 
men, certainly  not  the  least  intelligent  and  candid  of  the  wit- 
nesses produced  in  this  investigation.  There  is  not  on  the 
other  side  one  fact,  circumstance,  or  reasonable  conjecture,  to 
counteract  this  conclusion,  until  the  letter  of  October  8th, 
nearly  five  months  afterwards,  I  having  during  the  interval 
been  detached  from  duty  on  board. 

But  one  of  the  witnesses  has  expressed  to  this  Court  any 
dissatisfaction.  Dr.  Duval,  Purser  Watmough,  and  Lieutenant 
Harrison  are  silent,  and  Commander  Missroon  throughout  his 
testimony  does  not  intimate  that  he  was  not  convinced  of  the 
entire  propriety  of  the  accounts  and  settlement.  He  says  that 
some  of  the  members  of  the  mess  thought  the  transaction  war- 
ranted their  placing  me  in  Coventry,  but  it  does  not  appear 
that  this  happy  project  was  concerted  until  nearly  five  months 
afterwards.  There  are  two  small  circumstances,  in  this  con- 
nection, exhibiting  great  significance.  Commander  Missroon  at 
first  declined  to  sign  the  letter  of  October  8th,  and  in  the  com- 
munication of  October  16th,  omitted  all  allusion  to  the  mess 
accounts. 

I  cannot  know  what  mental  reservations  were  made,  but 
upon  the  evidence  in  the  case,  I  submit  to  the  Court  that  there 
was  a  final  settlement,  and  that  the  investigation  was  altogether 
satisfactory. 

If  it  were  otherwise,  why  was  not  the  account  kept  open  for 
further  explanation  and  adjustment ;  why  was  the  balance  struck 
and  paid  over  to  my  successor  ;  and,  above  all}  why  was  not  the  inti- 
mation of  the  Sth  October  given  when  the  affair  was  recent,  and  the 
dissatisfaction,  if  any  existed,  strong  ?  Why  was  it  reserved  until 
I  had  been  some  months  detached,  and  performing  the  important 
duties  of  a  civil  station  on  shore  ? 

Let  me  here,  parenthetically,  allude  to  a  singular  connection 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  35 

of  minute,  but  suggestive  circumstances,  relating  to  this  letter. 
Captain  Watson  and  Lieutenant  Kevere  were  not  invited 
to  sign  that  document,  nor  were  its  contents  or  transmission 
made  known  to  them  except  by  me.  Purser  Watmough, 
although  absent  from  the  ship,  had  his  place  reserved  according 
to  his  rank,  and  his  handwriting  decorates  the  missive  in  imme- 
diate vicinity  to  the  tardy  signature  of  the  executive  officer. 

It  was  dated  the  8th  of  October,  on  which  clay  Dr.  Duval 
was  detached,  and  it  then  awaited  the  names  of  the  hesitating 
first  lieutenant  and  the  absent  purser. 

Do  not  these  little  indications  denote  a  foregone  conclusion  ? 

But  that  there  was,  in  truth,  a  final  and  complete  settlement 

can  admit  of  no  possible  doubt;  nor  can  it  be  questioned  that 

whether  regarded  as  satisfactory  or  not,  it  ought  to  have  been 

so  held. 

-  You  have  the  very  corpus  of  the  fact,  visibly  and  palpably 
before  you,  with  all  its  teeming  evidence  of  items,  explanations 
vouchers,  and  arithmetic.  It  is  not  only  before  you,  but  it  has 
been  open  to  all  inspection  for  upwards  of  a  year,  and  no  mistake 
of  omission  or  inaccuracy  has  been  attempted  to  be  pointed  out. 
It  stands  unassailed  and  unassailable  ;  and  we  know  that  my 
accusers  have  carefully  scanned  the  publication  which  includes 
its  facts  and  figures.  Need  I  consume  the  time  of  the  Court 
by  attempting  to  restate  its  data,  its  computations  and  result. 

My  accounts,  identified  as  to  every  sheet  and  every  voucher, 
not  only  by  Captain  Watson,  who  had  them  in  his  custody  for 
a  long  time,  but  also  by  Dr.  Duval,  who,  upon  examination, 
admitted  he  had  seen  them  on  the  mess  table,  are  before  the 
Court.  They  defy  scrutiny.  They  show  every  dollar  received, 
every  cent  accounted  for,  and  the  balance  paid  over  to  my 
successor. 

If  the  mess,  or  any  member  of  it,  were  not  content,  it  shows 
their  injustice,  not  my  dishonesty. 

But  as  I  have  heretofore  and  elsewhere  declared,  I  am  not 
content  with  vindicating  myself  from  the  charge  of  dishonesty, 
but  I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  in  reference  to  the  allegation 


36  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

of  "  culpable  neglect."  My  account  shows  that  my  catership 
commenced  on  18th  March,  and  continued  to  31st  May,  1846, 
a  period  of  seventy-four  days.  The  mess  consisted  of  nine 
officers,  a  steward,  cook,  and  four  or  five  servants.  The 
amount  received  by  me  was  $458,  of  which  was  expended 
$455.55.  There  was  an  amount  passed  to  credit  of  the  mess 
for  ward-room  servants7  rations,  amounting  to  about  $66.25  ; 
making  the  actual  outlay  of  the  mess  $389.30  ;  being  $11.53 
per  month  for  each  officer  during  the  entire  period.  While  at 
Mazatlan,  fifteen  days,  the  marketing  was  $64.06,  with  more 
or  less  company  every  day.  But  as  the  ship  had  to  prepare  for 
a  forty  days'  voyage  (it  having  been  announced  four  days  before 
that  the  ship  was  in  all  probability  going  to  Puget  Sound, 
under  sealed  orders),  provision  had  to  be  made  accordingly,  and 
hence  the  bills  contracted  amounting  to  $108.15,  "John 
Stapp  n  and  "  Brig  Sirius,"  in  addition  to  the  "  items  "  enume- 
rated in  the  account. 

We  arrived  at  Monterey  on  22d  April. 

Now  the  whole  amount  of  money  received  by  the  caterer,  as 

shown  by  both  statements,  and  never  disputed,  was, $458  00 

Deduct  amount  returned  unexpended 2  50 

Leaves  the  sum  of    ...     455  50 

Deduct  amount  expended  as  per  acc't  at  Mazatlan 276  81 

Leaves  the  balance  of $178  69 

expended  at  Monterey,  and  of  which  expenditure  no  complaint 
has  been  made.  That  a  proper  economy  was  maintained  in  my 
expenditures,  may  be  seen  by  comparing  them  with  the  outlays 
by  Mr.  Missroon,  who  had  acted  as  caterer  for  five  days  during 
my  absence. 

The  acc't  shows  that  he  expended  for  marketing  for  five  days  $     5  12-£ 

By  deducting  the  amount  of  the  purveyor's  bills 138  00 

From  the  whole  amount  expended 178  69 

Leaves  for  marketing  thirty-nine  days  at  Monterey 40  69 

Missroon's  expenditure  was  therefore  per  day 1  02-J 

While  mine  averaged  for  thirty -nine  days 1  02 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  37 

But  the  chief  imputation  which  seems  now  to  be  relied  upon, 
in  connection  with  the  cruise  of  the  "  Portsmouth,"  as  far  as  I 
can  discover  from  the  course  of  examination,  appears  to  be  the 
disputed  question  of  duty  and  of  honor  in  reference  to  my 
mode  of  receiving  the  allegations  made  against  me  in  1846, 
whether  they  be  considered  true  or  false. 

The  estimate  of  this  matter  must  depend  upon  the  true 
bearing  and  proper  relation  of  a  very  few  admitted  facts. 

Whatever  suspicions  may  have  been  entertained  at  the  time 
of  the  settlement  of  the  mess  accounts,  it  is  very  certain,  both 
from  the  distinct  statement  of  Lieut.  Harrison,  and  the  equally 
explicit  admission  of  Commander  Missroon,  that  until  the  letter 
of  Oct.  8th,  1846,  there  was  nothing  upon  which  I  could  base 
a  demand  for  investigation.  The  mess  account  had  been  fully 
and  satisfactorily  adjusted,  the  balance  paid  over,  and  no 
tangible  difficulty  remained  open.  Admitting,  for  the  purpose 
of  the  argument,  the  existence  of  coldness  and  reserve  upon 
the  part  of  my  messmates,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  I 
would  complain  to  the  captain  of  that,  or  ask  a  judicial  investi- 
gation of  what  had  just  been  satisfactorily  adjusted  by  a 
private  settlement  with  the  parties  concerned.  Further,  how 
was  I  to  surmise  that  the  precedent  matters,  which  had  never 
been  alluded  to  by  the  mess,  to  my  knowledge,  were  rankling 
in  their  bosoms  to  my  disadvantage,  until  the  manifesto  of 
October  8th. 

Lieut.  Harrison  says  that  communication  was  expressly 
intended,  as  far  as  he  was  concerned,  to  force  me  to  vindicate, 
or  acquit  myself  of  the  charges. 

The  material  question  is,  what  is  the  intrinsic  character  of 
this  paper  ?  Whatever  might  be  the  motives  from  which  it 
emanated,  what  purpose  did  it  intend  to  accomplish  ?  Com- 
mander Missroon  says  it  was  to  place  me  in  "  Coventry ," 
although  I  had  some  time  previously  left  the  ship  and  the  mess, 
but  still  contributing  my  share  of  the  expense,  and  notwith- 
standing Commander  Missroon  says  he  did  not  expect  that  I 
would  ever  return  to  the  "  Portsmouth."      There  seems  an 

2* 


38  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

apparent  inconsistency  between  the  unquestionable  facts  and 
the  alleged  motives  and  object.  But  the  material  point  is  this: 
it  was  not  intended  to  force  me  into  a  demand  for  an  investi- 
gation. 

This  is  apparent  upon  the  face  of  the  letter.  It  was  a 
private  communication,  declaring  a  private  object,  namely,  that 
as  we  were  no  longer  members  of  the  same  mess,  or  asso- 
ciated in  service,  they  desired  to  meet  me,  thenceforward,  as  a 
stranger.  If  I  had  quietly  pocketed  that  communication  and 
rested  content  with  their  desire  "not  to  march  through 
Coventry  "  with  me,  I  presume  the  matter  might  quietly  have 
subsided  into  utter  oblivion.  Their  "  feelings  "  would  have  been 
satisfied,  and  the  ship  and  the  service  might  have  continued 
"  disgraced." 

Their  communication  had  no  view  whatever  to  an  investiga- 
tion, nor  was  it  contrived  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  me  to  such 
a  course.  It  had  a  personal  bearing  only  ;  and  Commander 
Missroon  at  first  declined  to  sign  it,  upon  the  ground  that  it 
was  not  likely  I  would  return  to  the  ship,  and  it  would  there- 
fore be  better  to  let  the  matter  drop.  When,  however,  I  took 
the  unexpected  course  of  submitting  this  communication  to  my 
commander,  the  executive  officer  admits  that  his  reply  was 
drawn  from  him  ;  that  he  was  forced  into  the  position  of  ten- 
dering his  " immediate  readiness"  to  prefer  charges.  I  had 
demanded  an  investigation  before  the  commander  of  the  ship — 
a  Court  of  Inquiry  or  a  Court  Martial.  My  official  accuser 
designated  the  Tribunal  before  which  he  held  himself  ready  to 
appear — and  that  was  a  Court  Martial.  There  was  not,  at  any 
time  or  from  any  quarter,  a  suggestion  as  to  a  Court  of  Inquiry, 
except  from  myself.  Can  there  be  any  doubt  as  to  our  relative 
positions  ?  Accusations  had  become  known  to  me  unofficially  ; 
I  had  given  them  an  official  shape  and  direction  ;  I  met  them 
with  the  "  most  positive  denial  of  any  foundation  in  fact,"  and 
demanded  that  they  "  be  proved  or  withdrawn."  I  asked  in 
most  distinct  terms  for  an  investigation  ;  stated  that  I  would 
"  await  patiently  the  time  "  when  I  could  meet  the  charges  in 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S    DEFENCE.  39 

either  of  the  modes  of  trial  indicated  ;  and  in  the  subsequent 
communication  to  Captain  Montgomery  I  expressed  the  trust 
that  I  would  "  be  yet  able  to  make  good  my  defence."  The 
mode  could  not  be  mistaken,  as  I  had  in  the  preceding  sentence 
of  the  same  letter  positively  declined  any  further  explanation  to 
my  accusers. 

No  candid  and  unprejudiced  person  can  read  my  communica- 
tions to  Captain  Montgomery,  and  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
I  omitted  anything  I  could  do,  or  ought  to  have  done.    Indeed, 

I  am  at  a  loss  to  conjecture  what  more  was  possible,  unless  I 
had  drawn  up  the  charges  and  specifications  against  myself, 
and  tendered  it  to  the  executive  officer  for  his  signature  ;  or 
had  drafted  the  order  for  convening  a  court-martial,  and  com- 
manded the  commodore  to  sign  and  issue  it. 

But  the  turn  which  is  now  given  to  this  matter  is  that  I 
failed  to  insist  upon  an  investigation.  Commander  Missroon 
seems  to  admit  that  I  promptly  and  properly  met  the  imputa- 
tion at  the  time.  What,  then,  occurred  to  alter  the  relative 
position  of  the  parties  ?  How  could  I  insist  upon  an  investiga- 
tion ?     By  repeating  my  request  ?     That  would  have  been  a 

II  ridiculous  excess/7  for  my  demand  was  continuously  in  the 
hands  of  my  commander,  and  so  remained  until  near  the  termi- 
nation of  the  cruise.  Every  day,  every  hour  that  it  remained 
in  his  possession,  it  repeated  my  request  for  an  investigation. 
It  was  a  constant  and  unceasing  demand  until  it  returned  into 
my  own  possession. 

But  there  was  a  Court  Martial  competent  to  my  trial  con- 
vened on  board  the  Portsmouth  in  184^.  My  letter  was  still 
preferring  its  original  request. 

Was  I  an  offender,  and  suspected  of  transgression  against 
the  provisions  of  the  Naval  Code  ?  My  sole  duty  was  to  submit 
to  trial — my  position  was  passive.  But  upon  my  accusers  the 
law  had  imposed  an  active  and  an  urgent  obligation.  They 
were  positively  enjoined  to  use  their  "  utmost  exertions "  to 
bring  me  to  punishment  under  a  discretionary  penalty  for 
neglect. 


40  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

But  had  the  executive  officer  redeemed  his  pledge  of  "  imme- 
diate readiness  n  to  prefer  charges,  or  had  he;  at  any  time,  per- 
formed his  duty  of  exhibiting  them  "  in  writing  to  the  proper 
officer,"  in  order  that  an  application  for  a  court-martial  might 
be  made  ?  "  Immediate  readiness"  to  prefer  charges  is  altoge- 
ther different  both  in  its  nature  and  its  consequences  from  their 
actual  exhibition. 

Whatever  looseness  of  military  practice  may  prevail  in  the 
naval  service,  however  incorrect  may  be  the  prevailing  impres- 
sions of  relative  duty,  the  question  is,  in  legal  estimation, 
entirely  free  from  doubt.  The  code  of  rules  for  the  government 
of  the  navy  distinctly  points  out  when  and  how  charges  are  to 
be  exhibited,  but  there  is  no  mode  indicated,  or  to  be  inferred, 
how  the  accused  party  is  to  insist  upon  an  investigation. 

The  most  extraordinary  portion  of  this  singular  doctrine  is 
the  consequence  which  inevitably  flows  from  its  application  to 
practice.  Unless  the  offender,  actual  or  supposed,  insists  upon 
an  investigation,  he  is  not,  under  this  theory,  to  be  brought  to 
trial ;  whence  it  follows  that  the  sanction  of  the  law  is  not 
obligatory  or  effective,  unless  brought  into  action  by  the  will 
and  option  of  the  offender.  The  conclusion  and  the  principle 
are  equally  preposterous. 

I  will  submit  one  further  suggestion  in  relation  to  this  mat- 
ter. I  know  not  that  it  is  either  an  advantage  or  a  boast  in 
an  officer,  or  a  man,  to  be  "  sudden  and  quick  in  quarrel." 
This,  as  well  as  to  be  "  bearded  like  a  pard,"  may  sometimes 
assume  the  appearance  of  ferocious  daring.  But  there  have 
been  quiet  spirits  who  have  sought  and  won  reputation,  "  even 
at  the  cannon's  mouth,"  without  these  outside  manifestations. 

Nor  can  I  discover  logic  or  reason  iu  meeting  accusations  of 
a  grave  character  with  that  fiery  and  explosive  "resentment" 
which  my  enemies  think  I  ought  to  have  exhibited. 

It  seemed  to  me  in  1846,  as  it  seems  to  me  now,  after  ten 
added  years  of  thought,  action,  and  experience,  that  the  course 
indicated  by  my  judgment  then,  patiently  to  await  the  time  and 
opportunity  of  justification,  has  more  of  true  propriety,  than 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  41 

the  mode  apparently  indicated  by  my  accusers,  of  challenging 
the  executive  officer,  who  placed  himself  in  the  prominent  posi- 
tion upon  that  occasion.  Besides,  the  serious  infraction  of  dis- 
cipline— which  would,  perhaps,  have  accomplished  the  proposed 
result — it  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  the  blood  of  my  adver- 
sary could  have  cleansed  my  reputation,  or  mine,  however  freely 
shed,  have  purified  me  from  imputed  guilt.  As  to  any  per- 
sonal deficiency  of  true  courage,  I  might  leave  it  even  to  my 
enemies  to  say  whether  I  was  found  wanting  at  the  post  of 
honor,  and  in  the  hour  of  danger. 

The  testimony  of  Lieutenant  Stanley  as  to  the  points  con- 
nected with  this  matter  is  highly  suggestive,  and  may  prompt 
the  Court  to  considerations,  which  I  cannot  discuss  without 
rendering  myself  obnoxious  to  the  imputation  of  egotism. 

The  question  in  regard  to  the  goods  shipped  in  the  "  John 
G.  Costar,"  is  a  question  of  intention,  not  of  fact. 

If  it  were  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  matter  of  fact,  I  might 
say,  and  rely  on  the  assertion,  that  there  was  no  proof  made 
by  the  government  that  any  goods  were  shipped  or  landed  by 
the  "  Costar  "  at  San  Francisco.  The  same  statement  is  true 
as  to  the  concomitant  fact  of  intention.  The  government  wit- 
nesses have  not  stated  a  single  circumstance  from  which  an 
inference  as  to  the  importation  or  the  motive  connected  with  it 
could  legally  be  drawn.  I  might,  therefore,  have  referred  you 
to  your  record,  and  contented  myself  with  the  declaration  that 
there  was  no  proof  to  sustain  the  allegation.  The  sole  testi- 
mony which  relates  to  this  matter — for  Dr.  Mitchell's  state- 
ment was  shown  by  the  cross-examination  to  be  inadmissible— 
is  that  of  Lieutenant  Simms.  This  consists  entirely  of  my 
admission,  which  must  be  taken  as  an  entirety,  and  shows  the 
use  intended  as  well  as  the  fact  of  importation  and  entry. 
Indeed,  I  might  have  taken  still  stronger  grounds,  and  pointing 
to  the  fact  that  the  government  having  proved  the  intention 
with  the  fact,  had  negatived  the  whole  imputation.  But, 
earnestly  desiring  to  endeavor  to  clear  up  a  transaction  which  I 
know  to  be  not  only  blameless  but  praiseworthy,  I  have  myself 


42  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Court  all  the  substantial  testimony- 
relating  to  this  point.  I  am  grateful  that  after  the  long  lapse 
of  time  I  am  still  able  to  establish  facts  which  lead  to  direct 
and  inevitable  conclusion. 

Permit  me  to  advert,  for  one  moment,  to  the  varying  phases 
of  this  imputation.  At  first,  and  for  a  long  time,  it  was 
charged  that  I  had  smuggled  these  goods.  There  was  also 
a  variation  of  the  slander,  which  charged  that  I  had  used  the 
"  Ewing  n  to  convey  them.  Next  came  the  further  addition 
that  I  had  employed  the  vessel  in  trading  along  the  coast. 
How  aptly  does  this  story  illustrate  the  words  we  hear  so 
frequently,  taken  from  the  Classic  Poet's  description  of 
Rumour,  "  vires  acquirit  eundo." 

The  two-fold  allegation  of  "  smuggling,"  magnified  into  the 
indefinite  plurality  of  "  some  cases,"  and  "  trading  along  the 
western  coast,"  formed  one  of  the  admitted  grounds  of  my  dis- 
missal from  the  service. 

"When  the  matter  had  undergone  some  semblance  of  investi- 
gation, it  was  transferred  into  the  new  shape  of  a  misrepresen- 
tation to  the  Collector  at  San  Francisco,  for  the  purpose  of  get- 
ting through,  free  of  duty,  goods  really  intended  for  purposes 
of  private  speculation. 

This  variable  character  of  the  imputation — like  all  the  other 
slanders  let  loose  against  me,  whenever  the  cry  of  "  mad  dog  " 
has  been  raised — of  itself  demonstrates  the  unsubstantial 
foundation  upon  which  it,  and  all,  rest. 

Let  me  now,  by  the  simple  process  of  weaving  the  facts 
proved  in  this  investigation  into  a  brief  narration,  show  the 
whole  truth  and  intention  of  the  purchase  of  this  clothing. 

When  we  arrived  at  Valparaiso,  having  previously  been 
unable,  as  the  receipt  of  only  linen  articles  at  Eio  shows,  to  pro- 
cure supplies  of  clothing  suitable  for  the  service  of  surveying  the 
coast  of  California  and  Oregon,  it  was  found  that  there  was  no 
government  "  slops  "  at  that  port,  and  further,  that  there  was  no 
storeship  in  the  Pacific. 

The  clothing  shipped  at  New  York  did  not — as  shown  by 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S    DEFENCE.  43 

the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bingham — include  those  articles  which 
were  especially  desirable  for  the  exposure  of  surveying  opera- 
tions— namely,  thick  over-coats,  and  heavy  double-soled  shoes. 

I  therefore  purchased  from  the  naval  store-keeper,  who  had 
imported  them  as  samples,  the  invoice  of  clothing  shipped 
in  the  "  Costar,"  which  was  precisely  of  the  right  description. 
The  distinct  and  sole  purpose  of  this  investment  was  to  enable 
the  crew  of  the  "  Ewing,"  and  "  Edith,"  or  such  other  vessel 
as  might  be  detailed,  to  procure  articles  so  necessary  to  their 
comfort,  and  the  prosecution  of  the  contemplated  work. 

It  appears  to  the  Court,  from  the  Testimony  of  Professor 
Bache,  that  it  was  the  well  understood  arrangement  that  I  was 
to  have  the  command  of  the  "  Edith,"  or  such  other  vessel  as 
might  be  associated  with  the  Ewing  in  the  intended  survey. 
Should  this  portion  of  the  contemplated  operations  fail,  I  was 
to  be  detached  and  return  home  ;  and  in  no  event  was  I  to 
serve  in  the  merely  subordinate  capacity  of  executive  officer  of 
the  "  Ewing." 

The  state  of  things  which  occurred  in  California  has  become 
matter  of  History.  The  joint  operations  of  the  Topographic 
and  Hydrographic  parties  were  entirely  suspended  through  the 
desertions  induced  by  that  extraordinary  rage  for  gold,  which, 
like  the  old  crusading  spirit,  pervaded,  with  uncontrolled  mad- 
ness, all  ranks  and  conditions  of  men. 

The  further  prosecution  of  the  survey  as  arranged  became 
impossible,  and  was  for  the  time  abandoned. 

It  was  then  that  the  indomitable  spirit  of  McArthur  sug- 
gested the  effort,  under  every  possible  difficulty,  to  accomplish 
the  survey  of  the  Columbia  Kiver  and  reconnoissance  of  the 
coast.  For  this  work  I  was  a  volunteer.  Its  results  are  known 
to  the  Department  and  the  country. 

I  quote  the  remarks  of  Professor  Bache,  in  his  eulogy  upon 
McArthur,  not  for  its  allusion  to  my  services,  but  for  a  purpose 
which  the  Court  will  understand  and  appreciate. 

"The  work  which  he  accomplished  will  live  for  ever  !  Sur- 
rounded by  circumstances   the   most   difficult   perhaps  which 


44  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

ever  tried  the  constancy,  the  judgment,  the  resources  of  any 
hydrographer,  he  vanquished  circumstances.  His  reconnoissance 
of  the  western  coast,  from  Monterey  to  Columbia  River,  and 
his  preliminary  surveys  there,  were  made  in  spite  of  desertion 
and  even  mutiny — in  despite  of  the  inadequency  of  means  to 
meet  the  truly  extraordinary  circumstances  of  the  country. 
Happy  that  in  his  officers  he  had  friends  devoted  to  him  and  to 
their  duties — especially  happy  in  the  officer  next  to  him  in  the 
responsibilities  of  the  work? 

This,  however,  was  the  labor  of  the  ensuing  spring.  In  the 
meantime,  the  original  purpose  had  entirely  failed.  The 
44  Edith n  had  been  lost,  and  could  not  therefore  be  given  over 
to  us,  and  the  steamer  "Jefferson"  sent  to  supply  her  intended 
place,  subsequently  shared  the  same  fate. 

Under  these  circumstances,  all  of  which  occurred,  or  were 
developed,  upon  the  arrival  of  the  Ewing  at  San  Francisco,  and 
before  Lieutenant  McArthur,  about  a  month  afterwards,  re- 
assumed  the  command,  the  object  for  which  the  clothing  had 
been  purchased  at  Valparaiso  necessarily  fell  through,  with  the 
enforced  abandonment  of  the  original  plan  of  operations.  The 
clothing  (one  suit  per  man  only)  was  upon  my  hands  at  con- 
tinual expense,  and  was  ordered  to  be  sold  as  rapidly  as  was 
practicable. 

I  now  desire  the  Court  to  note  these  significant  facts. 

First.  I  announced  to  Mr.  Bingham,  when  the  goods  were 
about  to  be  received,  that  they  had  been  purchased  for  the  use 
of  the  crew  of  the  "  Ewing."  I  need  scarcely  add  that  I  had 
also  in  view  the  vessel  I  was  myself  destined  to  command  at 
the  time  of  the  purchase.  I  also  communicated  the  same 
intention  to  Mr.  Simms  when  I  told  him  I  had  purchased  and 
shipped  the  goods.  Whether  this  statement  was  made  at  Val- 
paraiso or  San  Francisco,  or  on  the  voyage,  does  not  appear. 
Why  I  should  have  mentioned  the  matter  at  all,  if  I  had  any 
sinister  motive  in  the  purchase,  is  beyond  conjecture. 

What  is  the  legal  effect  of  the  announcement  of  the  inten- 
tion  and  the   act   thus  coupled  together.      The   declaration 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT's   DEFENCE.  45 

cannot  be  severed,  and  part  of  it  used  against  me,  and  the 
residue  discarded.  It  must  stand  as  an  entirety,  and  produce 
a  whole  and  not  a  divided  result.  This  contemporaneous  state- 
ment of  intention  is  not  only  competent  legal  evidence,  but,  in 
the  absence  of  all  opposing  testimony,  is  conclusive  as  to  the 
matter  declared. 

Whenever  a  particular  act  is  preferred  or  announced  with 
which  a  declared  intention  is  connected,  the  "  declaration" — I 
use  the  words  of  a  distinguished  writer  upon  the  law  of  evi- 
dence— "made  at  the  time  of  the  transaction,  and  expressive 
of  its  character,  motive,  or  object,  are  regarded  as  '  verbal  acts 
indicating  a  present  purpose  and  intention/  and  are  therefore 
admitted  in  proof,  like  any  other  material  facts.  They  are  parts 
of  the  res  gestce" — (Greenleaf.) 

I  claim,  therefore,  that  my  declared  intention  shall  be 
received  as  the  expression  of  that  truth,  which  is  the  very  heart 
of  this  matter. 

Again,  Mr.  Bingham  states  that  these  goods  were  received  as 
from  a  stranger  ;  were  accounted  for  in  the  same  way  ;  that  all 
proper  charges  were  made  against  them,  including  commis- 
sions at  the  highest  usual  rate.  Had  they  been  intended 
for  speculation,  I  would  have  consigned  them  to  the  firm, 
and  placed  them  among  the  joint  stock  and  to  the  joint 
account. 

Further,  the  fact  that  portions,  no  matter  now  inconsider- 
able, of  this  clothing  were  disposed  of  to  some  of  the  crew  of 
the  "  Ewing,"  at  invoice  prices,  or  for  less  than  the  residue  was 
afterwards  sold,  is  a  fact  of  high  significance.  It  is  reconcilia- 
ble  with  no  other  hypothesis  than  that  these  goods  were  truly 
intended  for  the  purpose  I  have  uniformly  declared  them  to 
have  been  purchased  for. 

I  submit  that  the  circumstances  of  this  case  might  well 
justify  the  collector  in  not  exacting  the  duty,  and  if  there  has 
not  been  a  very  exact  discharge  of  his  duties  under  the  revenue 
law  of  the  United  States,  it  will  be  remembered  that  this  trans- 
action took  place  before  California  was  admitted  into  the  Union, 


46  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

and  before  our  revenue  laws  had  been  formally  put  in  operation 
in  the  country,  and  while  the  collector  was  discharging  his 
functions  under  a  mere  military  appointment.  It  will  also  be 
remembered  that  during  this  period,  to  wit,  from  the  Conquest 
of  California  to  the  13th  of  November,  1849,  when  James  Col- 
lier, Esq.,  the  first  collector  appointed  under  constitutional 
provision,  arrived  at  San  Francisco,  it  was  a  matter  of  grave 
doubt  whether,  under  the  mere  military  authority  of  the  officers 
of  the  army  and  navy,  any  duties  were  at  all  collectable.  At 
the  December  term,  1853,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  after  a  very  able  discussion,  decided  this  case  in  favor 
of  the  duties.  In  the  introductory  part  of  the  decision  the 
Court  say  :  "  It  seems,  from  the  institution  of  the  suit  until 
now,  to  have  been  conducted  with  the  wish  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  to  give  to  the  plaintiffs  every  opportunity  to 
establish  their  claim  judicially  if  that  could  be  done,  and  with 
a  desire  on  its  part  to  obtain  from  this  Court  a  decision  as  to 
what  are  the  rights  of  the  United  States  in  respect  to  tonnage 
and  import  duties  in  such  a  conjuncture  as  that  was,  when 
California  was  ceded  by  treaty  to  the  United  States,  before 
Congress  had  authorized  such  duties  to  be  collected  there  by  a 
special  act." 

I  need  scarcely  refer  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Rhind,  and  the 
letter  of  Lieutenant  Simms,  which  effectually  dispose  of  the 
other  branches  of  this  imputation. 

I  now  present  this  proposition  to  the  Court,  and  I  beg  them 
to  ponder  upon  its  deep  significance.  It  is  applicable  to  each 
and  every  of  the  allegations  which  have  been  made  to  my  dis- 
paragement :  Do  not  the  exaggerated  and  unseasoned  terms 
in  which  the  imputations  against  me  have  been  uniformly 
announced,  intrinsically  denote  a  slanderous  and  malicious 
origin  ? 

If  the  "transfer"  of  five  shirts  to  Mr.  Delazon  Smith — not 
for  the  convenience  of  the  "  party  of  the  first  part,"  as  was  the 
case  with  most  of  the  other  "  transfers,"  but  to  "  supply  the 
ripe  wants  of  a  friend," — was  a  matter,  in  its  own  nature  and 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  47 

bearing,  disgraceful  to  me  and  derogatory  to  the  service,  why 
dress  it  up  in  such  pomp  of  circumlocution,  profuse  as  the  ruf- 
fles with  which  such  "  articles n  were  in  former  times  richly 
decorated,  and  magnify  it  into  a  "  stock  of  clothing,"  brought 
to  sea  for  peddling  purposes  ;  and,  by  mere  force  of  imagina- 
tion, convert  my  state-room  into  a  "huckster's  shop,"  fitted  up 
for  the  express  purpose  of  retailing  the  et  ceteras  which  are 
made  to  appear  quite  as  important  as  those  so  gravely  and 
wisely  commented  upon  by  that  legal  apostle  my  Lord  Coke  ? 

Why  stigmatize  the  simple  and  easily  understood  charge  of 
disobedience  of  an  order,  with  the  extravagant  paraphrase  of 
"  speculating  upon  a  private  library,  and  meanly  soliciting  sub- 
scriptions of  money,"  grandiloquently  lugging  in  a  "public 
functionary  ?" 

Without  further  repetition,  the  Court  will  readily  remember 
the  equally  brilliant  but  changeable  colors,  with  which  each 
and  every  of  the  other  "allegations"  has  been  bedaubed,  until 
their  intrinsic  character  has  been  effectually  concealed  by  the 
false  glare,  and  bewildering  glitter  of  their  outside  covering. 

If  I  refer  to  the  little  occurrence  of  seventeen  years  ago, 
from  which  it  was  supposed  some  imputation  might  be  derived, 
it  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  showing  with  what  avidity  and  dili- 
gence the  minutest  matters  have  been  scrutinized  and  brought 
together  to  pile  up  the  pyramid  of  accusation.  Commander 
Stoddard  has  been  called  upon  to  detail  the  circumstances  of  a 
mess  affair  in  which  I  am  supposed  to  have  indulged  in  a  little 
"  sharp  trading,"  not  on  my  own  account  but  for  the  benefit  of 
the  mess.  The  transaction  was  simply  the  payment  of  a  mess 
account  to  a  tradesman,  in  the  depreciated  currency  of  the  day, 
the  difference  between  it  and  specie  value  having  been  credited 
to  the  mess.  There  is,  however,  pregnant  significance  in  the 
fact  that,  although  unpopular  at  first  on  board  the  "  Consort," 
Commander  Stoddard  declares,  "  when  we  separated,  Mr.  Bart- 
lett  was  much  better  liked  than  when  he  joined  us." 

Lieut.  Stanley  was  also  cross-examined  as  to  the  affair  of  the 
"  Consort,"  and  as  I  feel  satisfied  that  there  is  nothing  in  it  to 


48  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

create  a  "  painful  impression "  upon  the  mind  of  the  Court,  I 
leave  it  upon  the  testimony,  without  a  word  of  further  comment, 
except  to  say  that  he  proves  that  it  was  satisfactorily  settled, 
at  the  time,  to  my  honor  !  and  that  the  complainant  admitted 
that  I  did  for  the  mess  what  everybody  else  did  who  paid  him 
for  his  supplies. 

Need  I  attempt  any  exposition,  in  addition  to  what  is  so 
conclusively  exhibited  by  the  record,  in  relation  to  the  clothing 
sent  from  the  "  Ewing,"  in  October  or  November,  1849  ?  It 
would  have  been  enough  for  the  perfect  accomplishment  of  my 
own  vindication  to  have  shown,  as  was  done  beyond  doubt  or 
cavil,  that  I  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  transaction. 
Butf  the  testimony  of  Lieut.  Gibson,  given  under  an  erroneous 
view,  and  very  imperfect  impressions  of  the  true  facts,  seemed 
to  indicate  something  of  complicity  between  Lieut.  McArthur 
and  myself.  When  I  produced  before  you,  from  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Bingham,  the  proof,  corroborated  by  the  testimony  of 
Lieut.  Gibson,  of  the  real  parties,  I  had  done  enough  for  my 
own  justification — but  I  should  not  have  been  content  with 
mere  self- exoneration.  The  memory  of  a  dear  and  gallant 
comrade  was  nearly  involved,  and  I  could  not  rest  satisfied 
without  his  vindication,  which  has  been  triumphantly  accom- 
plished. To  those  who  knew  the  strict  integrity,  the  elevated 
tone,  and  chivalrous  bearing  of  Wm.  P.  McArthur,  no  justifica- 
tion was  required.  The  old  Greeks  expressed  a  grand  philoso- 
phy in  their  beautiful  apophthegm,  "Let  no  one  be  called 
happy  till  his  death;"  and  McArthur  was  happy  in  the  unsullied 
termination  of  a  life,  passed  like  that  of  the  type  of  knightly 
honor,  without  fear  and  without  reproach. 
1  The  only  remaining  matters  of  imputation  which  require 
extended  notice,  are  the  allegations  connected  with  the  settle- 
ment of  my  accounts  of  expenses,  as  special  agent  of  the 
Treasury  Department  in  Paris. 

I  say  the  the  allegations  connected  with  these  accounts^  because 
there  is  no  question  open  in  reference  to  the  accounts  them- 
selves.    They  have  been  finally  settled  with  the  accounting 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  49 

officers,  and  you  have  the  statements  of  Mr.  Anderson,  the 
Commissioner  of  Customs,  and  of  Major  Smith,  the  first  Auditor, 
as  to  the  character  and  proper  effect  of  the  settlement. 

Both  these  gentlemen  unite  in  the  view  that  there  was 
nothing  in  these  accounts  in  any  sense  discreditable,  nor,  to  use 
the  language  of  the  latter,  "anything  that  in  the  slightest 
degree  tended  to  impugn  your  (my)  personal  or  official  honor." 

The  baseless  imputations  and  bold  mis-statements  connected 
with  this  settlement  do  not  arise  from  the  items  or  aggregate 
of  the  account,  but  from  the  extraordinary  misconceptions 
which  have  been  engrafted  upon  them.  These  misconceptions 
and  mis-statements  constituted  the  chief  pretext  for  the  action 
of  the  Navy  Board  in  my  particular  case.  When,  therefore, 
they  became  the  prominent  subject  of  examination  before  the 
Naval  Committee  of  the  Senate,  it  was  necessary  that  I  should 
carefully  and  elaborately  present  the  facts  and  documents 
necessary  to  explain  minutely  the  whole  subject  matter  of  these 
accounts  and  their  connected  circumstances.  That  Committee 
made  a  full  and  complete  scrutiny  of  the  whole  matter  upon  all 
the  evidence  connected  with  the  transactions,  and  upon  far 
stronger  allegations  and  more  injurious  imputations  against  me, 
than  are  now  before  this  Court ;  and  although  the  Committee 
did  not  do  me  the  simple  justice  of  announcing  my  exculpation, 
they  made  as  close  an  approach  to  it  as  could  have  been 
expected.  The  Report  states  as  follows  :  "  It  is  admitted  that, 
so  far  as  intelligence,  physical  capacity,  temperate  habits,  a  fair 
degree  of  professional  acquirement  and  skill,  and  attention  to 
duty  are  concerned,  Mr.  Bartlett  was,  at  the  time  of  his  being 
stricken  from  the  rolls  of  the  Navy,  an  efficient  officer,  and,  if 
free  from  just  imputations  of  moral  delinquency,  should  have 
been  retainted  on  the  active  list."  The  Committee  then  pro- 
ceed to  set  forth  that,  although  these  investigations  "took  a 
somewhat  wider  range,"  they  had  "  decided  to  confine  themselves 
to  three  distinct  charges." 

These  three  relate  to  the  same  matters  now  before  this  Court — 
the  shawl,  the  landing  of  goods  at  San  Francisco,  and  the  mess- 


50  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

accounts  ;  but  there  is  no  allusion  whatever  to  the  Treasury- 
accounts,  which,  by  inspection  of  the  minutes  of  the  Committee, 
will  be  found  to  constitute  the  subject  of  the  "  wider  range  " 
of  the  investigation. 

The  Committee  then  proceed  to  report  the  evidence  against 
me  relating  to  the  three  matters  designated,  but  the  report 
merely  submits  the  whole  question  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Senate,  without  any  expression  of  opinion  whatever.  This 
is  the  only  construction  of  which  the  report  is  susceptible,  and 
this  view  is  enforced  by  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Bell,  of  Tennessee, 
by  whom  the  report  was  submitted,  which  will  be  found 
reported  in  the  Congressional  Globe,  part  III.,  1st  Sess.  34th 
Congress,  1855-6,  at  page  2232. 

The  entire  absence  in  the  report  of  all  allusion  to  the  matter 
of  the  Treasury  accounts,  justifies  my  conclusion  that  the  Com- 
mittee found  in  that  matter  no  ground  whatever  for  "just 
imputation  of  moral  delinquency." 

I  had  supposed  that  after  the  investigation  before  the  Senate 
Committee  this  subject  was  at  rest,  but  as  the  matter  is 
now  revived  before  this  Court,  I  will  submit  a  very  few  sugges- 
tions in  regard  to  it. 

The  evidence  offered  on  the  part  of  the  government  as  the 
elements  of  judgment,  are  the  letter  of  instructions  of  the  Trea- 
sury Department,  under  date  of  June  16th,  1852,  the  order  of 
reference  of  the  Secretary  to  the  Light-House  Board,  of 
30th  September,  1854,  and  the  consequent  report  of  their  pre- 
liminary examination,  dated  November  15th,  1854,  together 
with  the  statements  of  accounts  and  accompanying  vouchers 
and  explanations,  and  the  testimony  of  Commander  Thornton 
A.  Jenkins. 

The  decision  of  the  Court  upon  the  request  preferred  to  the 
Judge  Advocate,  for  the  production  of  the  correspondence 
between  the  Light-House  Board  and  myself,  leaves  me  no 
choice  as  to  the  extent  of  the  discussion  upon  this  point.  I  am 
obliged  to  rely  upon  the  facts  and  documents  which  the 
government  has  produced  against   me,    as   all  my  testimony 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  51 

is  included  in  that  which  has  been  considered  by  the  Court  as 
unnecessary  ;  although,  to  be  intelligible,  I  will  be  obliged  to 
make  some  reference  to  documents  remaining  in  the  public 
archives. 

I  will  trust  that,  upon  a  fair  consideration  of  this  ex-parte 
view  of  the  question,  /  am  risking  little  in  regard  to  its  deter- 
mination. 

The  letter  of  instruction  shows  the  character  of  the  service 
devolved  upon  me,  but  not  its  extent  or  duration.  The  period 
of  my  residence  in  Paris  may  be  inferred  from  the  vouchers. 
It  appears,  then,  that  I  submitted  a  claim  to  the  accounting- 
officer  of  the  Treasury  for  expenses  amounting  in  the  gross  to 
$4,011.70.  This  amount  includes  everything  claimed  for 
expenses  in  the  United  States,  previous  to  sailing,  passage 
to  and  from  France  through  England,  and  delay  in  that  coun- 
try for  purposes  connected  with  my  mission,  and  my  personal 
and  office  expenses  in  Paris,  covering  a  period  of  twenty-seven 
months. 

It  is  proper  distinctly  to  state  the  ground  which  I  assumed 
in  reference  to  my  allowance  of  expenses.  This  will  appear, 
consistently,  from  every  communication  I  submitted  to  the 
department. 

I  had  confessedly  expended  more  than,  under  the  circum- 
stances, I  could  ask  to  have  reimbursed.  My  expenses  had  far 
exceeded  the  maximum  amount  of  commissions  upon  actual  dis- 
bursements. This  resulted  from  the  un-anticipated  prolon- 
gation of  my  residence  in  Paris,  growing  out  of  the  tardiness 
of  action  of  the  Treasury  Department,  as  to  certain  orders, 
as  exhibited  by  the  correspondence,  the  inevitable  delay  upon 
the  part  of  the  contractors,  and  the  large  increase  of  apparatus 
subsequently  determined  upon. 

In  looking  at  the  clause  of  my  instructions  relating  to  my 
expenses,  I  saw  that  its  grammatical  construction  referred  the 
maximum  per  centage  to  the  personal  expenses  as  contra-distin- 
guished from  the  specific  payment  of  passage  money  and  cost 
of  travel.     I  was  advised  that  this  was  a  fair  construction  of  its 


52  NAVAL   COURT    OF   INQUIRY 

legal  import,  and  that  if  an  agreement  with  the  government  be 
subject  to  two  constructions,  the  courts  have  determined  that 
that  construction  should  be  adopted  most  favorable  to  the 
officer.  But  whatever  were  my  legal  rights,  I  knew  that 
the  equity  of  my  claim  required  a  liberal  interpretation  of  the 
contract.  Its  understood  conditions  had  been  varied  by  the 
department.  I  had  remained  much  longer  abroad,  and  had 
rendered  far  greater  and  more  valuable  services  than  had  ori- 
ginally been  contemplated.  Except  for  the  change  effected  by 
the  act  of  Congress  in  the  establishment  of  the  Light-House 
Board,  and  the  mode  in  which  the  payments  were  made, 
I  should  have  been  equally  entitled  to  three  per  cent,  upon  the 
expenditures  for  the  fifty-five  additional  illuminators.  I  had 
much  more  trouble  as  to  those  than  as  to  the  original  eight.  I 
was  under  far  greater  responsibility,  as  I  alone  inspected,  tested 
and  certified  the  work.  The  apparatus  under  the  first  contracts 
was  tested  by  the  superintending  engineer  of  the  French 
administration,  as  well  as  myself.  But  I  never  claimed  any- 
thing for  these  services.  I  referred  to  them  as  offering  strong 
equitable  considerations  for  a  fair  reimbursement  of  my  actual 
expenses,  and  I  based  my  claim  upon  this  equitable  view.  I 
had,  in  fact,  disbursed  the  sum  of  $9,318.38,  for  the  "  sand 
key  apparatus,"  afterwards  Hatteras  light,  for  which  I  have 
never  been  allowed  any  per  centage,  although  the  amount  was 
formally  charged  against  me,  under  my  bond,  in  the  Treasury 
department. 

By  my  account  heretofore  presented,  it  will  be  seen  that  I 

claimed  for  my  personal  disbursements $4,011  00 

Upon  the  auditing  of  this  account,  with  the  vouchers  to  sus- 
tain the  several  items  of  charge,  there  was  allowed  the  sum 
as  properly  charged  and  vouched 3,752  18 

So  that  the  whole  amount  disallowed  or  suspended  by  the  depart- 
ment as  unnecessary  expenses  was  but 258  80 

A.s,  however,  it  was  decided  that  my  maximum  allowance 
could  not  exceed  3  per  cent,  on  the  "  expenditure "  of 
$90,41 3  90,  I  have  been  paid  only  the  sum  of 2,712  42 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  53 

The  sum  of  $258.80  which  was  disallowed,  consisted,  princi- 
pally, as  shown  by  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Anderson,  of  an  item 
for  "  parlor,  at  Fenton's  Hotel,  not  deemed  necessary."  Also 
the  item  for  "  transportation  of  extra  baggage,  medical  attend- 
ance, and  medicines."  The  charge  for  "  extra  baggage,"  is,  as 
every  transatlantic  traveller  knows,  necessarily  incident  even  to 
a  single  "  American  trunk,"  of  ordinary  size.  The  item  for 
M  recovering  lost  baggage,"  also  disallowed,  was  the  actual 
expense  of  recovering  the  trunk,  accidentally  lost,  which  con- 
tained all  my  vouchers  for  disbursements. 

I  have  stated  the  objectionable  items,  that  it  might  be  clearly 
seen  they  were  of  such  a  character,  whether  admitted  or  not, 
as  to  reflect  no  discredit  in  incurring  them. 

It  will  be  perceived  by  the  terms  of  my  letter  of  instructions, 
which  has  been  referred  to  as  the  agreement  by  which  my 
compensation  was  determined,  no  specific  number  of  apparatus 
is  mentioned.  It  was,  however,  understood  at  the  time,  that  I 
should  be  called  on  to  superintend  those  only  which  were 
necessary  for  the  Pacific  coast,  and  this,  it  was  presumed,  could 
be  accomplished  in  about  twelve  months.  Having  in  view, 
therefore,  the  time  to  be  occupied,  and  the  probable  amount  of 
the  expenditure,  the  amount  of  three  per  cent,  on  that  amount 
was  regarded  as  a  fair  equivalent  for  my  personal  expenses  for 
one  year.  Had  I  remained  abroad  but  the  period  contem- 
plated, which  period  was  the  basis  of  the  agreement  for 
compensation,  this  amount  would  have  exceeded  the  expenses, 
and  could  not  have  been  claimed.  But  instead  of  superintend- 
ing alone  the  lenses  for  the  Pacific  coast,  I  was  subsequently 
required  to  superintend  the  construction  of  fifty-five  illuminators 
for  the  Atlantic  ;  and  instead  of  remaining  one  year  in  Paris, 
as  was  contemplated  by  the  agreement,  I  was  detained  there 
upwards  of  twenty-six  months.  Now,  it  is  evident  that  the 
compensation  was  based,  not  on  skill  in  the  discharge  of  my 
functions,  but  solely  on  the  time  to  be  applied.  The  compen- 
sation was  for  expenses  ;  and  these  were  in  exact  proportion  to 
the  time  employed.     If  the  contract  had,  in  express  terms, 

3 


54  NAVAL  COURT  OP  INQUIRY 

stated  that  I  was  to  remain  in  Paris  for  twelve  months,  and  for 
the  expenses  of  that  period,  I  was  to  be  allowed  the  sum  of 
$2,000,  and  subsequently  I  had  been  required  to  remain  twelve 
months  longer,  without  any  express  stipulation  as  to  the  com- 
pensation, is  there  any  doubt  that  the  law  would  have  raised 
an  implied  contract  on  the  part  of  my  employer,  to  pay  me  a 
sum  for  the  additional  period  equal  to  that  for  my  original 
employment  ?  Testing  my  case  by  this  admitted  principle  of 
law,  my  compensation  would  far  exceed  the  whole  amount 
originally  claimed  by  me.  It  is  said,  however,  that  the  letter 
of  instructions  limits  the  allowance  to  a  per  centage  on  the 
"expenditures"  made  by  me,  and  as  the  " expenditures "  for 
the  fifty-five  illuminators  were  not  made  by  me,  I  have  no  right 
to  any  remuneration  for  my  extra  time,  and  extra  expenses. 
Admitting  the  technical  force  of  the  word  "  expenditures "  to 
be  as  is  contended  for,  the  conclusion  by  no  means  follows:  the 
most  that  could  be  urged  would  be  a  deduction  from  my  extra 
remuneration  of  such  sum  as  would  be  equitably  regarded  as 
the  equivalent  for  the  trouble  and  responsibility  in  receiving 
and  paying  out  the  money  ;  but  the  fact  would  still  stand 
boldly  out,  that,  by  orders  of  the  Department,  I  had  incurred 
greater  expenses  than  had  been  contemplated  by  the  parties 
when  the  agreement  was  entered  into.  This  proposition  seems 
to  me  so  plain,  that  anything  but  its  mere  statement  would  only 
seem  to  confuse  it. 

But  admitting  that  my  remuneration  was  limited  to  the 
technical  rule  of  "  expenditures,"  it  will  be  remembered  that  I 
have  heretofore  shown,  that  in  addition  to  the  "  expenditures  " 
for  the  Pacific  of  $90,413.90,  I  also  expended  for  Hatter  as 
light  $9,318.38.  By  this  technical  rule,  therefore,  I  am  entitled 
to  a  further  allowance,  equal  to  three  per  cent,  on  this  sum 
($281.34),  which  has  not  been  paid  me,  and  which  sum 
exceeds  the  disallowances. 

But  the  imputations  now  relied  upon  seem  to  be  restricted 
within  extremely  small  compass. 

Commander  Thornton  A.  Jenkins  was  desired  to  designate 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  55 

the  objectionable  items  ;  that  is,  such  as,  in  his  opinion,  were 
to  be  so  considered.  He  pointed  out  the  accounts  for  rent  of 
apartments,  and  "  menials  engaged."  (There  was  but  one 
employed  as  a  messenger,  and  the  occasional  services  of  a 
frotteur,  a  " menial"  peculiar  to  France,  whose  special  business 
it  was  to  wax  the  wooden,  uncarpeted  floor  of  the  chamber 
occupied  as  both  office  and  dining-room.) 

He  also  indicated  the  items  for  parlor,  at  Fenton's  Hotel, 
London,  and  the  medical  bill  incurred  at  Paris. 

When  Commander  Jenkins  came  to  explain  more  particu- 
larly his  views,  it  appeared  that  his  objection  applied  not  to  the 
charges  themselves — as  to  rent  and  servants,  candles,  fuel,  etc. 
— but  to  the  manner  in  which  the  vouchers  were  taken.  He 
considered  that  a  suspicion  attached  to  the  fact  that  they 
seemed  to  have  been  permitted  to  run  for  two  years  without 
settlement.  That  is  because  I  found  it  convenient  to  take  a 
receipt  at  the  end  of  a  running  account,  which  however  had 
been  settled  monthly,  in  order  to  have  one  voucher  instead  of 
many,  my  account  is,  in  the  estimation  of  Commander  Jenkins, 
suspicious ! 

It  would  waste  the  time  of  the  Court,  and  exhaust  my 
patience  to  comment  upon  such  trivial  and  puerile  sugges- 
tions. 

I  leave  these,  and  the  carping  at  "extra  baggage,"  and 
"  expense  of  recovering  lost  baggage,"  with  a  single  remark. 
It  is  not  pretended  that  these,  and  the  "  charge  for  parlor," 
were  not  paid  by  me.  I  presume  it  will  scarcely  be  denounced 
as  discreditable  to  have  had  a  parlorvin  which  to  receive  my 
guests  instead  of  my  bed-chamber.  I  venture  to  hope  that  it 
was  not  disgraceful  to  go  in  search  of  my  missing  effects  and 
valuable  vouchers  ;  and  I  feel  quite  confident  that  I  incurred 
no  just  odium  in  paying  what  the  railroad  companies  undertook 
to  charge  for  baggage  above  the  permitted  weight.  I  could 
scarcely  be  expected,  either  as  special  agent  or  officer  of  the 
Navy,  to  travel  with  a  carpet-bag.  But  if  these  items  were 
properly  and  necessarily  incurred,  what  impropriety  can  suggest 


56  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

itself  to  the  most  suspicious  imagination,  from  the  fact  of 
presenting  them  to  the  consideration  of  the  accounting  officers, 
whether  allowed  or  rejected. 

I  submit  to  the  candid  and  reflecting,  that  all  the  disgrace 
attaches  to  a  system  which  places  the  government  in  the  humi- 
liating position  of  quibbling  about  such  trifles  ;  and  that  the 
odium  ought  to  be  cast  on  those,  who,  upon  such  a  foundation, 
attempt  to  build  up  unworthy  imputations  against  one  who  has 
faithfully  and  zealously  performed  important  services,  nearly 
affecting  the  great  commercial  interests,  and  the  honor  of  the 
country. 

But  as  my  accounts  have  been  assailed  in  these  small  parti- 
culars by  the  Secretary  of  the  Light  House  Board,  I  beg  to 
array  upon  the  other  side  the  very  opposite  views  of  the  first 
Auditor,  the  Commissioner  of  Customs  (Comptroller),  and  the 
Superintendent  of  the  Coast  Survey — member  of  Light  House 
Board — to  whom  I  may,  by  fair  inference,  add  the  Naval 
Committee  of  the  Senate. 

The  introduction  of  the  charges  connected  with  these 
Treasury  accounts  before  the  Navy  Board,  as  well  as  every 
other  imputation  against  me,  is  to  be  traced,  by  his  own 
admission,  as  extracted  from  his  testimony  before  the  Senate 
Committee,  and  placed  upon  this  record,  to  John  S.  Miss- 
roon  ! 

Bear  with  me,  gentlemen,  for  a  moment,  while  I  advert  to 
our  mutual  position.  You  are  the  Judges — I  am  the  accused. 
The  stake  which  I  have  involved  in  this  investigation  is  large, 
but  your  interest  is  yet  greater.  It  consists  in  your  responsi- 
bility. My  life — from  the  earliest  period  of  my  naval  career, 
down  to  that  terrible  moment  when,  beneath  the  burning  sun 
of  Africa,  gasping  for  news  from  home  and  country,  I  received 
the  fatal  intelligence  which  wrested  the  trumpet  from  my 
stricken  hand — has  been  laid  bare  before  you.  The  imputed 
delinquencies  of  my  heart,  the  alleged  deficiencies  of  honor 
and  of  honesty  have  been  probed,  and  exposed  to  yqur 
examination. 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  51 

You  are  invested  with  the  highest  and  most  solemn  preroga- 
tive ever  conferred  upon  an  earthly  tribunal — the  determination 
of  moral  character,  the  scrutiny  of  the  relation  between  man 
and  his  Maker,  a  subject  heretofore  deemed  beyond  the  scope 
of  human  power.  You  are  commissioned  to  determine  not  the 
existence  of  a  fact,  but  a  spiritual  condition — a  state  of  moral 
fitness.  It  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  a  thing  to  be  determined  like 
ordinary  matters  connected  with  the  external  life  and  actions 
of  an  individual.     Yours  is  a  higher  and  more  sacred  duty. 

To  pass  upon  the  physical  condition  of  a  man  requires  but 
the  ordinary  perceptions  of  mere  animal  life — to  ascertain 
adequacy  of  professional  skill  and  information  demands  only 
superiority  of  scientific  knowledge  and  practical  attainment — 
to  determine  those  qualities  of  mind  which  are  necessary  to 
enable  one  to  understand  and  master  the  details  of  duty, 
requires  mere  appreciation  of  intellectual  acuteness — but  to 
decide  upon  that  vastly  more  recondite  matter,  the  possession 
and  influence  of  principles  of  action,  seems,  at  first  sight,  to  be 
almost  an  usurpation  of  the  attributes  of  Deity. 

The  delicate  relations  between  will  and  action  are  scarcely 
of  more  difficult  ascertainment,  unless  we  have  broad  and  strong 
results  to  guide  us.  You  would  naturally  demand,  before  exer- 
cising so  vast  a  prerogative,  that  acts  of  unequivocal  relation 
should  be  distinctly  and  unerringly  established.  You  would 
further  require  that  these  acts  should  be  of  such  a  character  as 
to  require  no  subtle  reasoning  to  trace  their  connection,  but 
such  as  would  at  once  touch  the  common  instincts  of  mankind. 

Even  great  and  startling  crime  could  not  always  be  relied  on 
as  the  indication  of  immorality,  because  it  is  the  continuity,  the 
habit  of  offending,  which  vitiates  the  principles,  and  impairs 
the  moral  sentiment.  It  is  only  by  definite  outward  acts  that 
man  can  judge  of  the  interior  motives  of  his  fellows  ;  and  even 
then  his  judgment  is  more  than  fallible. 

But  without  strong  external  indications,  we  cannot  ascertain 
the  qualities  and  characteristics  of  moral  life  and  action. 


58  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

Called  upon,  then,  to  determine  my  moral  fitness,  what  proof 
are  you  to  require  ? — what  standard  to  establish  ? 

You  have  been  told  by  a  distinguished  officer  of  long  expe- 
rience and  great  intellectual  force,  that  he  is  utterly  at  a  loss 
how  to  determine  this  new  ingredient  of  professional  efficiency. 

Ordinarily,  every  man's  standard  of  morality  is  merely  the 
ideal  of  that  conscience  which  has  been  infused  into  his  bosom 
to  control  and  regulate  his  individual  actions.  But  such  a  test 
is  utterly  inapplicable  here,  because  it  cannot  be  converted  into 
a  general  and  equal  rule. 

The  idea  of  moral  fitness  in  the  respective  breasts  of  this 
Court  may  or  may  not  accord  ;  but  if  it  should  so  happen,  they 
cannot  impose  it  as  a  rule  of  judgment  upon  the  co-ordinate 
tribunals  established  under  the  same  statute.  It  will  not  answer 
to  have  one  law  of  morality  in  Court  No.  1,  another  in  Court 
No.  2,  and  yet  a  different  in  Court  No.  3. 

Where,  then,  are  we  to  seek  the  standard?  Is  it  to  be 
found  in  the  varying  phases  of  general  morality,  in  this  or  that 
section  of  the  country — in  the  notions  and  habits  of  the  gene- 
ration passing  off,  or  that  newly  entering  upon  the  stage — to 
tone  itself  by  the  character  of  the  "  Trunnions  n  and  "  Hatch- 
ways "  of  a  by-gone  age — to  conform  to  the  elevated  purity  of  a 
McDonough,  or  the  laxer  sentiments  of  a  less  rigid  school — or 
to  be  set  in  unison  with  some  estimated  average  of  the  reformed 
service  of  the  present  ? 

It  is  easy  to  understand  and  determine  what  mental  fitness  is 
necessary  to  enable  an  officer  to  acquire  sufficient  knowledge  to 
discharge  the  duties  of  his  position. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  conclude  what  reasonable  amount  of 
skill  and  experience  may  be  included  in  professional  fitness  ; 
nor  are  we  much  at  a  loss  upon  the  narrower  question  of  physi- 
cal competency.  But  the  moment  we  venture  to  speculate  upon 
the  undefined  ^quality  newly  engrafted  upon  the  regulations  of 
the  service,  we  are  launched  upon  a  sea  of  doubt  and  difficulty. 

How,  then,  are  we  to  arrive  at  any  legal  or  correct  standard 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  59 

by  which  we  are  to  estimate  this  moral  fitness,  which  the 
statute  requires,  but  omits  to  define.  It  was  well  said  by  a 
distinguished  Senator,  in  the  debate  upon  this  very  matter, 
"  that  questions  of  morals  present  no  issue  either  in  law  or  in 
fact." 

It  is  perfectly  certain  that  no  tribunal  erected  under  the 
Constitution  can  transcend  the  limits  recognized  as  beyond  the 
sphere  of  human  government,  and  trespass  upon  the  delicate 
relations  which  exist  between  conscience  and  life.  Moral  fitness, 
or  unfitness,  must  be  developed  in  action,  before  it  can  become  a 
subject  of  cognizance,  whatever  theory,  as  to  its  nature  and 
requirements,  we  may  please  arbitrarily  to  adopt. 

This  view  accords  not  only  with  manifest  propriety,  but  also 
with  the  spirit  of  that  code  to  which  alone  we  can  resort  for 
analogy  or  illustration.  The  act  for  the  better  government  of 
the  navy  enjoins  upon  all  commanders  to  show  a  good  example  ; 
to  be  vigilant  in  inspecting  the  conduct  of  all  under  their  com- 
mand ;  to  guard  against  and  suppress  all  immoral  practices,  and 
to  correct  such  as  are  guilty  of  them.  It  also  prescribes  the 
punishment  of  various  specified  and  defined  offences  in  the  same 
general  manner,  and  for  similar  purposes,  as  the  ordinary  crimi- 
nal codes  of  the  country. 

These  injunctions  and  provisions  look  exclusively  to  specific 
acts ;  to  morality,  not  in  the  abstract,  but  in  the  concrete  ;  to 
life  and  behavior,  and  not  to  opinions  or  speculative  delin- 
quencies. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  question  of  moral  fitness  must 
be  determined  by  proof  of  specific  facts,  and  not  by  opinion  of 
character. 

The  question  still  recurs  :  by  what  standard  is  moral  fitness 
for  the  naval  service  to  be  determined  ?  If  there  be  any  legal 
idea  which  is  naturally  included  in  the  phrase,  or  can  be  incor- 
porated with  its  essence,  it  must  necessarily  be  definite,  pre- 
cise, fixed,  both  in  character  and  application.  The  ideal 
criterion  generated  by  the  particular  condition  of  society,  or  the 
opinions  of  varying  sects,  cannot  be  resorted  to  as  a  legal  mea- 


60  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY — 

sure  of  nautical  morality,  because  it  does  not  possess  the 
fundamental  requisite  of  a  law,  that  is  universality  of  applica- 
tion as  a  rule  of  action.  It  is  as  fluctuating  and  uncertain 
as  the  proverbial  contrariety  of  individual  opinions.  It  may 
conform  to  the  Spartan  ideal,  which  sanctioned  the  concealed 
crime,  and  visited  with  reprobation  only  the  exposure  ;  or 
it  may  assume  the  rigidity  and  solemn  formality  of  Puritanism, 
or  the  lax  and  easy  virtue  of  the  Cavalier. 

Where  then  shall  the  officer  look  for  his  rule  of  conduct, 
which  is  to  be  the  uniform  and  equal  law  of  his  professional 
career  ? 

There  is  nothing  to  which  he  can  possibly  resort,  except  the 
code  which  legislative  authority  has  provided  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  service.  If  his  actions  come  up  to  the  require- 
ment of  its  provisions,  he  stands  perfect  in  professional 
integrity,  and  there  is  no  inquisitorial  power  which  can  look 
beyond  his  outward  conduct  and  established  habits. 

But  the  question  of  moral  fitness  includes  a  still  closer  limita- 
tion under  the  Act  of  Congress  establishing  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  Court. 

The  subject  matter  of  inquiry  is  the  capacity  for  efficient 
naval  service,  which  is  included  in  the  phrase,  "  physical,  men- 
tal, professional,  and  moral  fitness." 

As  physical  fitness  does  not  demand  the  extreme  energy  of 
which  the  human  system  is  capable — as  mental  fitness  does  not 
require  the  highest  order  of  intellectual  power — as  professional 
fitness  may  be  sufficient  without  the  greatest  degree  of  skill,  or 
the  largest  amount  of  experience — so  moral  fitness  is  not 
expected  to  be  perfect,  either  in  kind  or  degree.  *It  must  be,  in 
character  and  extent,  exactly  what  is  necessarily  demanded  for 
the  proper  and  efficient  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  service. 

The  reputed  author  of  the  phrase,  "  moral  fitness,"  the 
Chairman  of  the  Naval  Committee  of  the  Senate,  who  might 
naturally  be  supposed  to  understand  its  scope  and  meaning, 
declared,  in  the  course  of  the  debate  upon  the  motion  to 
strike  out  these  words,  that  it  was  an  error  to  suppose  "  that 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT's   DEFENCE.  61 

this  provision  will  institute  any  particular  searching  inquiry  into 
the  morals  of  individuals."  He  added,  "  naval  officers  are  not 
stringent  upon  this  point,"  and  afterwards  added,  "  they  are 
not  very  stringent  construers  of  what  morality  should  be." 
There  were  others,  who,  with  a  wiser  foresight,  predicted 
the  evils  which  were  to  grow  out  of  this  anomalous  addition  to 
the  scope  of  the  remedial  investigation. 

The  sound,  practical  proposition,  under  the  enactment,  may 
be  inversely  stated  in  this  form :  Admitting  that  the  habits  of 
an  officer,  either  constant  or  occasional,  have  not  been  strictly 
conformable  to  what  we  may  please  to  assume  as  the  proper 
standard  of  morality,  yet  the  true  question  is,  simply  and 
solely,  whether  such  habits  have  in  fact  impaired  his  general 
professional  efficiency. 

For  isolated  errors  and  official  short-comings,  certain  specific 
penalties  have  been  provided.  These  may  have  been  enforced, 
or  the  delinquent  may  have  escaped  "unwhipped  of  justice  ;" 
but,  in  either  case,  this  is  foreign  to  the  practical  subject  of 
investigation.  The  jurisdiction  of  these  Courts  extends  to  parti- 
cular facts  only  so  far  as  they  illustrate  the  specific  inquiry  which 
has  been  submitted  to  their  decision,  which  is  the  actual  present 
condition  of  the  applicant  in  relation  to  the  four-fold  fitness 
described  in  the  Statute.  Should  they  attempt  to  exercise  a 
power  to  examine  into  any  matters  except  with  the  single  view 
of  assisting  their  conclusion  of  the  broad  question  submitted  to 
their  decision,  they  would  unquestionably  exceed  their  authority, 
and  usurp  a  jurisdiction,  which  belongs  exclusively  to  the 
ordinary  tribunals  created  for  the  regulation  of  the  service. 
Their  extraordinary  power,  although  comprehending  an  extent 
of  inquiry  co-extensive  as  to  particulars,  with  the  usual  scope 
of  military  Courts,  is  yet  directed  towards  a  wholly  different 
end.  It  has  no  relation  whatever  to  the  punishment  of  offences, 
but  is  directed  wholly  and  exclusively  to  the  single  question  of 
the  fitness  of  the  individual  for  the  naval  service. 

It  is  therefore  submitted  as  an  undeniable  position — which 
must  form  the  basis  of  all  reasoning  upon  the  subject — that 

3* 


62  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY — 

particular  delinquencies,  specific  offences,  either  of  commission 
or  omission,  have  no  bearing  upon  the  office  and  duty  of  this 
Court,  except  so  far  as  their  knowledge  of  human  nature  may 
teach  that  such  short-comings,  by  continuity  of  occurrence,  or 
necessary  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  produce,  of  necessity,  a 
palpable  moral  impediment,  as  conclusive  in  its  character  as 
physical  disability,  to  hinder  or  impede  the  efficient  discharge 
of  duty. 

I  must  beg,  even  at  the  risk  of  tediousness,  to  submit  a 
few  remarks  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  allegations 
against  me,  and  their  bearing  and  effect  upon  the  distinct 
finding  which  is  to  terminate  this  investigation.  '  That  finding 
must  be  precise  and  definite,  not  a  mere  report,  or  recommenda- 
tion, but  a  judgment  as  to  the  question  of  fitness  in  each  and 
every  of  its  four-fold  components. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  there  is  any  doubt  or  difficulty  in 
regard  to  my  fitness  for  naval  service  under  the  first  three 
branches  of  inquiry ;  and  the  contest  is  confined  to  what  may 
be  justly  included  under  the  fourth  head  of  investigation. 

The  Committee  of  the  Senate  concluded  that  "if  free  from 
just  imputations  of  moral  delinquency,"  I  "  should  have  been 
retained  on  the  active  list." 

As  that  point  was  not  determined  against  me,  and  so 
reported,  I  might  firmly  infer  that  there  was  nothing  brought 
to  their  notice  to  bring  them  to  an  adverse  opinion. 

Broadly  as  the  question  is  stated  in  that  report,  I  should  be 
perfectly  content  to  meet  it  now  in  all  its  latitude.  But  under 
the  jurisdiction  conferred  upon  this  Court,  there  must  be 
necessary  limitation  to  any  such  vague  consideration  of  the 
question. 

The  matter  for  your  determination  is  my  present  moral 
fitness,  and  did  the  exigency  of  my  case  require  it,  I  should 
boldly  claim  that  even  with  admitted  delinquencies  occurring 
more  than  ten  years  ago,  with  an  interim  of  a  life  passed  in 
the  constant  discharge  of  important  duties  and  valuable 
services,  some  of  them  performed  under  heavy  responsibilities, 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  63 

and  involving  the  expenditure  of  large  sums  of  money,  I  am 
entitled  to  call  up  the  evidence  of  those  services,  the  testimony 
of  ten  years  of  unquestioned  integrity,  to  rebut  the  presump- 
tion arising  from  even  proved  moral  deficiencies — that  I  am, 
now,  and  here,  as  I  stand  before  you,  in  that  respect,  unfit  for 
the  service. 

But  however  willing  I  might  be  to  place  my  hopes  and  fate 
upon  the  mere  decision  of  the  various  matters  arrayed  against 
me,  the  duty  of  this  Court  will  not  allow  them  to  disregard  so 
important  an  element  of  this  investigation.  If  there  were  any 
doubt  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  my  attempt,  by  positive  proof,  to 
repel  the  imputations  of  former  years,  that  doubt  would  vanish 
before  the  clear  evidence  of  ten  years  of  devoted  duty  and 
unassailed  reputation.  A  fundamental  principle  of  the  law  of 
evidence,  in  criminal  cases,  allows  character  and  good  conduct 
to  be  weighed  against  every  imputation  falling  short  of  full 
legal  proof. 

But  I  take  a  still  higher  stand,  and  I  say,  that  without  a 
scintilla  of  the  positive  testimony  which  I  have  introduced 
before  this  Court,  my  life,  character,  and  services  do,  in  them- 
selves, disprove  the  unsustained  allegations  of  my  enemies. 
Why  I  should  have  had  those  enemies,  many  of  whom  admit 
the  intermixture  in  me  of  many  good  and  valuable  qualities,  I 
am  at  a  loss  to  conjecture.  But  there  is  a  happy  compensation 
in  one  statement  in  which  many,  originally  prejudiced  against 
me,  concur,  namely,  that  whenever  I  became  better  known,  I 
was  better  liked. 

If  Mr.  Stanley's  conjectures  be  correct,  and  that  is  the  key 
to  my  alleged  unpopularity,  all  I  have  to  say  is,  that  my 
course  in  that  respect  is  still  approved  by  my  reason,  and  no 
man  can  question  that  it  is  not  only  sanctioned,  but  enjoined 
by  the  regulations  of  the  service. 

But  while  I  am  thus  proudly  alluding  to  the  untarnished  repu- 
tation of  my  maturer  life,  I  must  not  forget  that  even  the  recent 
portion  of  my  career  has  been  subjected  to  a  sort  of  posthumous 
attack,  by  imputations  attached  to  matters  occurring  since  I 


64  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

was  killed  out  of  the  service.  Lieutenant  Charles  Caroll  Simms 
has  appeared  before  the  Court,  and  declared  that  he  considers 
me  morally  unfit  for  the  service  for  three  special  reasons.  In 
order  that  I  may  not  encounter  the  chances  of  Lieut.  Charles 
Caroll  Simms'  repeated  denunciation,  I  give  him  all  the  benefit 
he  can  derive  from  his  own  mode  of  stating  his  charges  against ' 
me.  It  will  be  perceived  that  they  relate  to  very  recent 
matters. 

He  alleges  that  I  have  "  made  willful  misrepresentations  of 
facts."  I  quote  his  specifications  of  this  charge  from  the 
record,  to  forestall  the  possible  incredulity  which  might  connect 
itself  with  an  attempt  to  state  the  substance  of  his  testimony. 
1  'He  stated,  in  a  pamphlet  he  has  published,  that  I  had  given 
a  confused  statement  before  the  Senate  Committee.  In  the 
same  pamphlet  he  represents  that  he  employed  the  schooner 
1  Ewing '  for  giving  sailing  directions  to  vessels  off  San  Fran- 
cisco, when  he  himself  told  me  that  he  was  to  go  to  Bodega, 
and  that  he  had  passengers  on  board  to  take  up  there.  He 
also  says,  in  a  letter  to  me,  dated  January  19th,  1856,  '  that 
the  only  articles  I  had  was  three  large  pictures,  which  hung  in 
the  cabin/  when,  in  point  of  fact,  he  had,  besides  them,  two  gold 
watches,  to  my  knowledge." 

I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  italicize  the  last  sentence  of  the 
testimony  of  Lieut.  Charles  Caroll  Simms,  in  order  that  it  may 
have  that  prominence  which  its  importance  demands. 

Now,  the  charge  which  this  gentleman  makes  against  me  is 
in  terms  a  grave  one,  however  an  unprejudiced  mind  may 
regard  the  extraordinary  specifications  upon  which  it  rests. 

It  will  be  observed,  in  reference  to  the  first  specification,  that 
Lieut.  Charles  Caroll  Simms  does  not  venture  to  produce  the 
statement  made  by  him  before  the  Senate  Committee,  in  order 
to  convince  the  Court  that  I  have  made  a  "  willful  misrepre- 
sentation," but  assumes  that  his  indignant  ipse  dixit  is  plenary 
evidence  of  the  fact.  I  venture  to  differ  with  Lieut.  Charles 
Caroll  Simms  upon  this  point.  I  venture  to  suggest  to  the 
Court,  that  inasmuch  as  the  statement  in  question  is  legally 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  65 

before  them,  they  may  perhaps  come  to  the  same  estimate  of 
its  contents.  I  might  further  intimate  to  the  Court,  that  the 
alleged  confusion  of  the  statement  referred  to  what  Lieut. 
Simms,  in  the  joint  letter  signed  by  himself  and  Lieut.  Gibson, 
called  my  "  anomalous "  position  in  "  living  on  shore  "in  the 
"  employment  of  the  golden  realities  and  speculations  of  Califor- 
nia," "making  morbid  undisciplined  imaginations,"  etc. 

It  seems  to  me  now,  in  full  view  of  the  indignation  of  Lieut. 
Simms,  that  if  the  Court  will  refer  to  a  single  passage  which  I 
have  had  placed  upon  the  record  for  that  purpose,  they  will 
possibly  agree  with  me,  or  at  all  events  relieve  me  from  the 
charge  of  willful  misrepresentation  as  to  this  point.  That  pas- 
sage is  as  follows  :  "  Bartlett  was  in  the  Navy  at  this  time, 
apparently  attached  to  schooner  Ewing,  but  held  no  position 
on  board.  Was  executive  officer,  but  did  not  perform  the 
duties  nominally  attached."  How  could  I  be  "  apparently 
attached"  but  hold  "  no  position  ?"  or,  indeed,  how  could  I  be 
"  apparently  attached"  at  all?  And  what  are  the  "  duties 
nominally  attached"  to  an  "  executive  officer?"  Perhaps 
Lieut.  Simms  may  better  enlighten  us  after  he  shall  have  been 
"  apparently  attached"  to  such  a  position  ;  but,  in  the  mean- 
time, I  submit  to  the  Court  that  the  confusion  does  exist  either 
in  Lieut.  Simms'  statement  or  my  brain  ;  in  which  latter  case  I 
will  plead  my  stultification  to  disprove  the  willfulness  of  my 
misrepresentation. 

I  might,  perhaps,  with  some  justice,  apply  this  obnoxious 
epithet,  "  confused,"  to  the  second  specification  of  Lieut. 
Simms.  It  is  by  no  means  clear  that  he  intends  to  deny  the 
fact  that  I  did  give  sailing  directions  to  vessels  off  San  Fran- 
cisco. If  he  does,  I  have  only  to  say  that  I  have  proved  the 
literal  truth  of  my  statement  by  Lieut.  Gibson  ;  and  also  that 
I  did  take  one  passenger  at  least,  a  member  of  the  joint  com- 
mission, Lieut.  Blunt,  to  Bodega,  which  I  have  established  by 
the  testimony  of  Captain  Van  Brunt,  and  until  Lieut.  Simms 
shall  further  enlighten  me,  I  am  unable  to  perceive  any  conflict 
between  the  two  facts. 


66  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

As  to  the  third  specification,  I  presume  that  even  the  gravity 
of  the  occasion  will  scarcely  redeem  the  statement  of  the  wit- 
ness from  the  inevitable  imputation  of  puerile  absurdity.  When 
I  used  the  expression  he  quotes  from  my  letter,  it  is  scarcely  to 
be  supposed  that  I  was  giving  an  inventory  of  all  my  personal 
effects  ;  for  if  so,  Lieut.  Simms  might,  with  equal  justice,  have 
convicted  me  of  a  still  larger  misrepresentation,  for  in  addition 
to  the  two  watches,  I  had  also  a  "stock"  of  clothes,  including  a 
highly  suspicious  number  of  shirts  ! 

Immediately  previous  to  the  conclusion  of  the  testimony,  Lieu- 
tenant Duer  was  introduced,  and  interrogated  as  to  his  impres- 
sion of  his  own  opinions,  and  the  opinions  of  others  entertained 
fifteen  years  ago.  The  only  evidence  contained  in  his  statement 
is  the  evidence  of  unfairness  on  the  part  of  the  witness,  and 
gross  injustice  to  me.  At  the  close  of  this  protracted  inquiry, 
new  allegations,  of  which  I  could  have  no  previous  suspicion, 
are  suddenly  sprung  upon  me,  without,  however,  one  solitary  fact 
proved,  either  to  sustain  them,  or  even  to  denote  their  origin. 
Lieutenant  Duer's  first  allegation  is,  that  I  failed  to  secure  the 
respect  of  either  officers  or  crew.  This  is,  in  its  very  nature, 
nothing  more  than  the  opinion  of  the  witness,  as  he  does  not 
pretend  to  state  a  single  instance  in  which  such  a  sentiment  was 
developed  in  action  or  expression.  It  is,  therefore,  merely  his 
opinion  of  their  opinions. 

The  witness,  however,  proceeds  to  state  what  he  seemed  to 
consider  causes  of  such  estimation,  which  he  asserts  to  be  repu- 
tation, and  facts  occurring  on  board,  and  which  latter,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  witness,  were  also  sufficient  proof  of  fear,  false- 
hood and  hypocrisy. 

And  what  are  the  facts,  or  rather  what  is  the  fact  ?  for  but 
one  is  alluded  to. 

A  servant-boy  was  threatened  to  be  flogged  at  my  instance, 
and  while  smarting  under  the  infliction — for  it  was  actually  in- 
flicted— made  threats  of  vengeance  and  exposure  against  me. 
The  punishment  was  directed  on  account  of  his  having  smuggled 
liquor.     Lieutenant  Duer  proceeds  to  state,  and  it  is  the  only 


LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE.  61 

fact  he  mentions,  "  that  the  boy,  when  called  up,  denied  all  that 
he  had  said,  and  the  matter  dropped." 

And  yet  the  witness  has  come  before  this  Court,  and  detailed 
his  unfounded  impressions  of  the  harshest  character,  based 
entirely  upon  the  vindictive  charges  of  a  drunken  negro,  re- 
tracted by  him  when  sober. 

Whether  the  witness  stands  self-condemned,  it  is  needless  to 
inquire,  but  I  cannot  believe  that  I  am  to  suffer,  even  in  estima- 
tion, by  such  testimony,  which  I  have  no  possible  opportunity  to 
rebut,  and  which  is  connected  with  matters  so  remote  in  time. 

I  have  a  remark  to  make  in  regard  to  this  and  the  other  alle- 
gations against  me,  which  stand  in  the  same  category — that 
matters  alleged  to  have  produced  strongly  unfavorable  impres- 
sions, but  not  officially  reported,  deserve  no  consideration  what- 
ever as  elements  even  of  an  unfavorable  impression,  much  less 
a  condemnatory  finding. 

If  they  were  of  a  grave  character,  the  failure  to  report  was 
a  gross  dereliction  of  duty,  and  he  who,  by  culpable  omission, 
neglects  his  enjoined  obligations,  presents  himself  before  a 
Court  with  little  claim  to  credit  in  regard  to  his  present  version 
of  events  which  his  past  inaction  shows  were  then  held  in  a  very 
different  estimation. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Lieutenant  Duer  is  one  of  the 
witnesses  named  in  the  famous  cartel  of  October  16th,  1846, 
and  the  ''instance'7  with  which  his  name  is  connected  is  stated 
to  have  "  occurred  in  the  surveying  service." 

The  matter  itself  is  not  described  in  such  a  way  as  will 
enable  us  to  decide  upon  its  identity,  except  by  inference,  but  it 
is  characterized  as  placing  me  "in  a  worse  light  than  anything 
charged  against  him  in  this  letter."  The  writer  in  this  "  in- 
stance "  failed  to  avail  himself  of  his  usual  parade  of  epithets, 
for  he  might  have  described  the  transaction  as  a  crime  of  blacker 
dye,  as  it  depended  solely  upon  the  declarations  of  a  drunken 
negro.  It  is  true  he  afterwards  denied  the  whole,  but  it  seems 
to  have  been  considered  that  to  have  what  they  call  "  allega- 
tions "  made  against  me,  was  quite  enough,  in  the  estimation  of 


68  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY 

my  accusers,  to  brand  me  with  infamy.  It  made  no  kind  of  dif- 
ference whether  they  were  true  or  false. 

It  would  be  sufficient  for  my  defence  upon  this  point  to  bring 
in  contrast  with  the  extraordinary  testimony  of  Lieutenant 
Duer,  that  of  the  immediate  chief  of  the  survey  at  the  time  of 
the  incident  in  question.  Captain  Powell's  statement  and  esti- 
mate of  my  character,  relating  to  the  same  period,  and  derived 
from  the  same  service,  are  before  you.    I  need  but  refer  to  them. 

The  Court  could  not  fail  to  remark  the  still  more  extraordi- 
nary contrast — heightened  by  the  juxtaposition  of  evidence — 
between  the  testimony  of  Lieutenant  Duer,  who  served  with  me 
some  few  months,  fifteen  years  ago,  and  that  of  Professor  Bache, 
the  distinguished  head  of  the  Coast  Survey,  whose  esteem  I 
have  the  happiness  and  consolation  now  to  enjoy.  His  tri- 
bute to  my  character  and  services  is  fresh  upon  your  record, 
a  fit  conclusion  to  the  labors  of  this  examination.  I  will  leave 
it  to  speak  in  its  own  trumpet  tones  against  the  finding  of  the 
Navy  Board,  and  the  unsubstantial  imputations  with  which  this 
record  is  encumbered. 

Much  stress  seems  to  be  placed  upon  the  adverse  opinions  and 
inferences  expressed  by  some  of  the  witnesses  upon  the  part  of 
the  government.  The  most  singular  fact  connected  with  the 
parade  of  opinions  in  the  case  is  the  absence  of  that  of  the 
leader  of  all  the  attacks  upou  my  character.  Commander 
Missroon,  although  placing  a  high  estimate  upon  my  profes- 
sional attainments  and  mental  and  physical  capacity,  has  no- 
where, throughout  his  voluminous  testimony  and  explanations, 
placed  upon  record,  in  express  terms,  his  opinion  of  my  moral 
fitness. 

Lieutenant  Gibson  expressed  no  adverse  estimate,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  the  fair  inference  to  be  drawn  from  his  evidence  is  in 
my  favor,  as  he  expressly  said  he  knew  of  no  ground  of  impu- 
tation except  the  sale  of  clothing  by  McArthur  to  Bingham ; 
and  I  believe  when  he  knows  the  simple  truth  of  that  transac- 
tion, he  will  regret  the  unjust  suspicions  predicated  upon  imper- 
fect knowledge. 


LIEUT.    BARTLETT's   DEFENCE.  69 

I  desire  now  to  place  in  the  even  scales  of  Justice  the  oppo- 
sing opinions  of  the  witnesses  without  one  word  of  comment. 
On  one  side  we  place  the  sweeping  denunciation  of  Purser 
Watmough,  the  milder  prejudice  of  Dr.  Duval,  the  downright 
depreciation  of  Lieut.  Harrison,  and  the  irate  explosion  of 
Lieut.  Simms,  all  told  :  on  the  other  side,  pile  up,  in  rich  pro- 
fusion, the  valuable  esteem  and  kindly  appreciation  of  Com- 
modores Lavallette  and  Crabbe,  Captains  Montgomery,  Powell 
and  Ellison,  Watson  and  Revere,  Dr.  Chase,  Lieutenants  Stan- 
ley and  Forrest,  Gov.  Kodman  M.  Price,  Alexander  Dallas 
Bache — and,  I  thank  God  !  I  might  have  summoned  hosts 
of  others,  of  the  best  and  greatest  in  every  quarter  of  this 
broad  Union  ! — but  with  these,  whose  names  grace  my  record, 
need  I  inquire  which  side  kicks  the  beam  ? 

One  thing  more  I  would  ask  the  Court  particularly  to  notice 
— How  is  it  that  with  avowed  enmity  and  imputed  unpopular- 
ity always  at  work  against  me,  /  have  never  been  brought  to  pun- 
ishment, or  subjected  even  to  a  reprimand  ?  Further,  how  have 
I — as  I  believe  I  have — uniformly  secured  the  approbation  of 
every  superior  officer  with  whom  I  have  at  any  time  served, 
with  a  single  exception  ? — that  exception  is  John  S.  Missroon  ! 

I  have  now  scrutinized  the  testimony  arrayed  against  me 
upon  this  record.  I  have  endeavored  to  suggest,  and  to  com- 
mend  to  the  reason  of  the  Court,  the  true  legal  principles,  and 
sound  statutory  constructions  which  should  govern  their  inves- 
tigation and  estimate  of  the  facts. 

In  the  comments  which  have  inevitably  presented  themselves 
upon  the  character  of  the  testimony,  and  the  spirit  exhibited 
by  the  principal  witnesses,  I  have  been  actuated  by  a  forbear- 
ance and  charity  which  they  have  never  accorded  to  me. 

Their  motives  I  have  not  assailed  or  exposed.  Their  bias  and 
their  concert  are  so  strongly  and  prominently  exhibited,  and  so 
blended  with  their  testimony,  as  to  infect  the  whole  case  with 
the  taint  of  persecution.  At  the  same  time,  while  feeling  the 
keenest  sense  of  agony  and  wrong,  I  owe  it  to  my  sense  of  jus- 
tice to  say,  that  in  my  belief,  the  origin  and  cause  of  all  the 


TO  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY — 

hostility  which  has  been  arrayed  against  me  spring  from  the 
master-malice  of  one  man,  whose  malignity  has  pursued  me  with 
unrelenting  and  vindictive  fury.  The  stone  which,  eleven  years 
ago,  was  cast  into  the  bitter  waters  of  strife,  has  enlarged  its 
ever-widening  circles,  until  it  has  swelled  into  the  dreadful 
vortex  which  has  engulphed  my  reputation  and  my  hopes. 

But  I  trust  that  I  am  not  deceived  in  the  belief  that  I  begin 
to  feel  the  influence  of  the  returning  surge  which  is  to  regurgi- 
tate me  from  the  horrors  of  that  dismal  and  fathomless  abyss. 

It  was  one  of  the  chief  imputations  of  1846,  that  I  was  not 
sufficiently  sensitive  of  the  attack  upon  my  character.  At  least 
no  man  can  now  say,  that  during  the  last  eighteen  months  I 
have  not  stood  behind  my  hurled  gauntlet  against  all  comers. 
I  have  challenged  the  action  of  the  Navy  Board,  and  defied  the 
utmost  malice  of  my  enemies,  open  or  unavowed.  I  have 
devoted  my  life  and  my  labors  to  the  redemption  of  my  charac- 
ter from  the  imputations  which  have  been  heaped  upon  me. 

In  this  final  effort  I  trust  that  I  have  been  successful.  But 
if,  unhappily,  I  should  find  myself  baffled  in  this  sustaining 
hope,  I  will  appeal  to  the  popular  justice  of  my  country,  and 
still  believe  that  at  the  great  bar  of  public  opinion  I  shall  yet 
redeem  the  pledge  of  1846,  to  "  make  good  my  defence." 

Washington  Allon  Bartlett. 


ADDENDA 


The  following,  from  original  letters,  forming  part  of  Lieu- 
tenant Bartlett's  defence,  and  annexed  to  the  record,  will  speak 
for  the  opinions  of  their  authors : 

U.  S.  Flag  Ship  Jamestown, 

Porto  Grande,  Oct.  28<2,  1855. 

Sib: 

I  have  received  your  letter  of  this  clay's  date,  containing  a 
copy  of  a  letter  from  the  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  Mrs. 
Bartlett,  in  relation  to  your  retirement  from  the  Navy  of  the  U. 
States.  Although  I  have  not  received  anything  official  from  the 
Department  upon  the  subject,  yet  the  Hon.  Secretary's  letter  to 
Mrs.  Bartlett,  and  the  reasons  set  forth  by  yourself,  will,  no  doubt, 
justify  me  in  relieving  you  from  further  duty  on  board  this  ship. 
In  doing  so,  however,  I  cannot  avoid  saying,  that  I  deeply  regret 
the  loss  of  your  services.  Tour  gentlemanly  and  officer-like  bear- 
ing whilst  under  my  command  has  uniformly  met  my  warmest 
approbation. 

I  am,  with  great  respect, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
Thomas  Ckabbe, 
Commander -in-  Chief  of  the  V.  8. 

Naval  Forces,  Coast  of  Africa. 
To  Lieut.  W.  A.  Bartlett. 

71 


12  LIEUT.  BARTLETT'S   DEFENCE. 


U.  S.  Flag  Ship  Jamestown, 
Porto  Grande,  (St.  Vincent's)  Oct  24^,1855. 

Dear  Sir  : 

We  entertain  too  high  an  appreciation  of  your  character  as  a 
gentleman  and  an  officer,  and  too  warm  a  regard  for  you  as  a  mess- 
mate and  a  friend,  to  allow  you  to  leave  us  without  saying  to  you, 
in  the  sincerity  of  our  hearts,  that  we*deeply  regret  that  you  are 
about  to  part  from  us,  and,  above  all,  the  cause  that  takes  you 
away.  In  the  difficult  and  responsible  relation  that  you  have  sus- 
tained to  us  as  executive  officer  of  the  ship,  you  have  ever,  whilst 
discharging  your  duties  with  fidelity,  borne  yourself  towards  us 
with  the  utmost  frankness,  conciliation,  and  courtesy.  And  in  the 
more  intimate  and  kindly  relation  as  a  member  of  the  little  society 
that  we  form  amongst  ourselves,  and  which  can  subsist  in  harmony 
only  by  mutual  cultivation  of  friendly  feelings  and  the  practice  of 
friendly  offices,  you  have  endeared  yourself  to  us  by  your  uniform 
amiability  of  disposition,  and  by  the  desire  that  you  have  ever 
evinced  to  cherish  the  most  cordial  intercourse  with  us  all. 

We  therefore  beg  to  assure  you  that,  in  parting  from  us,  you 
are  taking  leave  of  those  who  will  ever  remember  you  with  plea- 
sure, and  who,  whatever  fortunes  may  betide  you,  will  always  con- 
tinue your  well  wishers  and  friends. 
Ever,  very  truly, 
Yours, 

George  Oltmer,  Fleet  Surgeon,  ranking 

with  Commander. 

T.  H.  Patterson,  Lieutenant. 

Edward  A.  Barnet,  Lieutenant. 

T.  M.  Taylor,  Purser  (rank  of  Commander). 

Julian  Myers,  Lieutenant. 

Samuel  Richd.  Swann,  Ass't  Surgeon. 

John  L.  Heylln,  Commodore's  Secretary. 

Jno.  E.  Hart,  Acting  Master  and  Lieut. 

Jas.  M.  Bradford,  Acting  Lieutenant. 

Chas.  W.  Thomas,  Chaplain. 

Lieut.  Washington  A.  lUnTLKTT. 


TESTIMONIALS.  13 


U.  S.  Flag  Ship  "  Jamestown,"  Porto  Grande, 

St.  Vincent,  October  23d,  1855. 

Deab  Sir: 

In  forwarding  you  the  enclosed  letter  from  Commodore 
Crabbe,  relieving  you  from  further  duty  in  this  ship,  I  beg  leave  to 
assure  you  of  my  deepest  regret  for  the  cause  that  has  produced  it, 
and  for  the  interruption  of  an  intercourse  and  association  always 
confidential,  harmonious,  and  friendly.  I  shall  ever  esteem  you,  in 
your  character,  as  an  officer,  and  gentleman,  and  in  parting  from 
you,  tender  you  my  sincerest  wishes,  for  your  restoration  to  the 
service,  and  for  your  future  influence. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Jas.  Francis  Armstrong, 

Lieutenant  Commanding, 
Lieut.  Wash.  A.  Bartlett,  U.  &  iS.  "Jamestown." 


U.  S.  S.  Jamestown,  Porto  Grande, 

St.  Vincent,  October  26th,  1855. 

Sir: 

It  is  with  feelings  of  the  most  heartfelt  sorrow  that  we 
address  these  few  lines  to  you. 

You  are  about  to  return  to  your  home,  and  we,  as  officers,  who 
have  taken  pleasure  in  being  under  your  command,  cannot  think  of 
your  leaving  us  without  expressing  our  thanks  for  the  gentlemanly 
manner  in  which  we  have  been  treated  by  you. 

Your  name  will  ever  live  fresh  in  our  memories.     Hoping  that 
you  may  succeed  in  all  your  undertakings,  we  remain, 
Yours  truly, 

Wm.  Cope,  Gunner, 
John  McKinley,  Boatswain, 
Joseph  K.  Smith,  Carpenter, 
Lieut.  Washington  A.  Bartlett,  U.  S.  Navy. 


74  LIEUT,  bartlett's  defence. 


U.  S.  Flag  Ship  Jamestown,  Porto  Grande, 
St.  Vincent,  Oct.  2Uh,  1855. 

Sir: 

You  are  about  to  return  to  your  home.  In  so  doing,  the 
members  of  the  steerage  feel  it  their  duty  to  express  to  you  their 
deep  regret,  and  their  sincere  gratitude  for  the  extreme  kindness 
with  which  you  have  universally  treated  us,  during  the  time  we 
have  had  the  pleasure  of  being  under  your  command.  You  may 
be  assured,  that  after  your  leaving  us,  you  will  ever  be  cherished 
in  our  memory,  with  feelings  of  the  highest  regard  and  esteem,  in 
your  character  as  an  officer  and  gentleman. 

Sir,  we  bid  yon,  with  sorrow,   a  hearty  farewell;  with  many 
wishes  for  your  future  welfare  and  happiness,  believe  us, 
Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servants, 

A.  R.  Conklix,  M.  Mate. 
0.  W.  Lawrexce,  M.  Mate. 
Yal.  Hall  Vooriiees,  M.  Mate. 
O.  A.  Henckel,  M.  Mate. 
II.  B.  Jonxsox,  Oapt.'s  Clerk. 

To  Lieut.  W.  A.  Bartlett,  U.  S.  Nowy. 


U.  S.  Ship  Jamestown,  off  Porto  Grande, 
29th  October,  1855. 

Sir: 

In  the  discharge  of  my  duties  as  sailmaker  of  this  ship,  I  have 
learned  much  of  the  disposition  of  the  crew,  and  the  feeling  they 
have  toward  you,  particularly  during  the  time  you  have  served  as 
executive  officer,  and  beg  leave  to  state,  that  they,  being  aware  of 
your  intended  departure  for  the  States,  have  expressed  a  wish  to 
me,  and  through  me,  to  testify  their  regret  that  you  have  occasion 
to  leave  them  prior  to  the  end  of  the  cruise. 

Since  I  have  been  attached  to  the  Navy,  I  have  seen  other  officers 
who  have  gained  the  esteem  of  their  ship's  company,  but  never  to 
such  a  degree  as  you  have,  from  the  hardy  sons  of  Neptune  com- 


TESTIMONIALS.  15 

prising  this  ship's  crew.     Your  capabilities  as  a  Lieutenant,  and 
your  bearing  as  an  officer  and  a  gentleman,  have  won  their  admira- 
tion, and  they  say  they  cannot  let  you  depart  without  this  token  of 
their  gratitude  and  their  esteem. 
"Very  respectfully, 

Yours,  &o., 

Wm.  1ST.  Haull,  Sailmaker. 

Approved. 

W.  Plummer,  Captain  of  Forecastle. 
James  Young,  "      Fore-top. 

Henry  P.  Grace,        ""    Main-top. 
Chas.  Stewart,         "    Mizzen-top. 
Thos.  W.  Macready,  m    Afterguard. 
Thomas  Kitchen,      "    Hold. 
David  Esbeck,  Signal  Quartermaster. 
George  Potter,  Boatswain's-mate. 
William  Thomas,  Sailmaker's-mate. 
John  H.  Loveless,  Carpenter's-mate. 
Daniel  Hussey,  Gunner's-mate. 
John  D.  Gorman,  Master  at  Arms. 
Chas.  Swanson,  Yeoman. 
James  MoFarland,  Cooper. 

P.  S. — They  all  wish  to  sign  and  approve  my  remarks,  but  as  it 
would  occupy  too  large  a  space,  and  too  much  time,  I  could  but 
permit  one  from  each  part  of  the  ship,  who  bears  testimony  as  to 
the  sentiments  of  the  gangs  to  which  they  are  attached. 

W.  1ST.  M. 


Hempstead,  Long  Island,  January  YWi,  1856. 

Dear  Sir  : 

In  reply  to  your  request,  that  I  would  state  my  opinion  of 
your  efficiency  as  an  officer,  and  your  deportment  as  a  gentleman, 
during  our  recent  association  on  board  the  "  Jamestown,"  where 
you  served  under  my  command.  I,  with  great  pleasure  say,  that 
in  every  particular,  as  a  zealous  and  capable  officer,  and  a  well-in- 


76  NAVAL  COURT  OF  INQUIRY. 

formed,  intelligent  gentleman,  I  regarded  *you  as  most  exemplary. 
Commodore  Orabbe  frequently  expressed  himself  to  me  in  very 
warm  terms  of  you,  as  a  highly  accomplished  officer,  and  like  ex- 
pressions were  made  from  all  your  messmates  in  the  ward-room, 
showiDg  a  uniformity  of  opinion  throughout  the  officers  of  the 
ship. 

Sincerely  trusting  that  the  error  which  seems  to  have  been  made 
in  your    case  may   speedily  be  rectified,   and  that  you  may  be 
honorably  restored  to  your  position  in  the  navy. 
I  am,  very  truly, 

Your  obedient  servant  and  friend, 
Fes.  B.  Ellison, 

Commander  U.  8.  Na/oy. 

Mr.  W.  A.  Bartlett,  Washington^  D.  C. 


831 


